Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 >
Topic Options
#1467418 - 16/07/2018 08:39 Not the climate change thread
Mike Hauber Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 13/07/2007
Posts: 3307
Loc: Buderim
A lot of stuff keeps getting said in the drivers thread which is clearly not climate driver related (if by climate drivers we mean stuff like ENSO IOD etc). Evidently it is not climate change related either as it is permitted. To keep the climate driver thread on topic I am replying here.

Originally Posted By: marakai


If a Models input is only using consensus based information, ergo, only consensus based information is going to come out the other end of any simulation run on said model.


So the models are all saying the same thing, and thats bad?

Originally Posted By: marakai


Basing published findings upon Models that can't be reproduced.


But if the models cannot be reproduced, how can they be saying the same thing?

Originally Posted By: marakai


Can't be in anyway Falsified, and time and again are found to be predicatively WRONG is not SCIENCE.


So being found wrong is somehow different to being falsified??

Originally Posted By: marakai

Time and again we see all sort's of headlines with a claim of this or that regarding Weather or Catastrophic Climate events predicted by said reputable sources based upon "Models" which never eventuate, and which are never questioned either at the time of publishing nor afterwards after they haven't happened.


No we don't. Can you post any examples?


Originally Posted By: marakai

Whatever happened to Robert K Merton's concepts ?


I don't know. You tell me what happened to the concepts of a sociologist and how they are relevant to climate science.


Originally Posted By: marakai

Models are well and good, but....

They certainly are, but they are not perfect, and some people like to make a deal of the lack of perfection and/or post a lot of contradictory nonsense to try and discredit them.

Top
#1469768 - 30/08/2018 22:55 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
marakai Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 05/01/2006
Posts: 1904
Loc: Maryfarms NQ
Wow interesting, I only just came across this by accident Mike and must say thanks for providing a forum that might deal with some of these issues.

"So the models are all saying the same thing, and thats bad?"

It's not so much that they are all saying the same thing Mike, more so that they are all Wrong.
A model is only as good as it's input, and if you are ignoring that which is too difficult to "Model" then you are just creating a tool that agree's with your desired output. EG: Ignore Clouds, Oceanic Plankton, Seasonal water vapour fluctuations etc and all you get back is a basic computation rather than an accurate Model.

I think I'll let a physicist answer this one Properly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZN2jt2cCU4

"But if the models cannot be reproduced, how can they be saying the same thing?"

Quite easily Mike, Nearly all of them are using the same consensus input type data, ergo they all end up at the same conclusion or output. None of them use a full range of realistic input such as clouds etc as mentioned above. Each model is calibrated to a certain range of inputs and a button is pushed to ascertain an outcome. I might ask, if a Model is reliable in it's outcome what chance is there for a chaotic system such as that of the Earth to be accurately predicted ?

It would of been nice to be Quoted in full but here go's any way.

"Can't be in anyway Falsified, and time and again are found to be predicatively WRONG is not SCIENCE."

(Q"So being found wrong is somehow different to being falsified??")

Being found wrong time after time after time, and yet persevering with the same mantra in the face of incontrovertible evidence that you are wrong time after time and being given a free pass in the MSM for such Pseudo Science with gay abandon is detrimental not only to real Science but in time will undermine the field of science itself. You yourself must know that you can't use the failure of a Model to falsify a claim right ? The Model itself is not science to start with.
You might claim that a Model shows this or that based upon it's input, but if it fails it is just a model after all right ?


"Time and again we see all sort's of headlines with a claim of this or that regarding Weather or Catastrophic Climate events predicted by said reputable sources based upon "Models" which never eventuate, and which are never questioned either at the time of publishing nor afterwards after they haven't happened."

Q"No we don't. Can you post any examples?"

Just go look at the latest Q&A show from this week M8, Larissa Waters Former Green senator announcing to the world that HALF the Great Barrier Reef was dead now due to coral bleaching. Go listen to the last couple of days ABC News announcing that a New Bleaching event may be imminent based upon a convention of "Climate Scientist's" held over the last week or so.

Another half arsed quote: "Models are well and good, but...."

"They certainly are, but they are not perfect, and some people like to make a deal of the lack of perfection and/or post a lot of contradictory nonsense to try and discredit them."

Models are not SCIENCE, they are just models, and that is all they are.
They are not empirical, they are not evidence, they are not results.

And when it comes to estimating what might happen in decades to century's when it comes to the weather or climate they are guesstimates at their best.

Even the most skilled forecasters are hard up predicting the track of a tropical cyclone three days out with all the state of the art tools at their disposal, narrow that down to 24 hours out and they are still making best estimate guesses most of the time.

Think about that for a minute, they are using real time info and the very same computational models that they use for forecasting months, years and decades out to determine an actual real time situation, and yet are still guessing against nature.

The difference is that they are using actual real time observations to predict the next twelve to twenty four hours, as opposed to unknown and chaotic influences over years and decades yet still expect us to believe that the years and decades are predictable while they regularly mis predict the next 24 hrs of a weather system ?

A lot of Stuff keeps getting said, not much of it is accurate or actually happens despite all of the predictions. Endless warming and El Nino's, etc !

Top
#1469769 - 30/08/2018 23:12 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
marakai Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 05/01/2006
Posts: 1904
Loc: Maryfarms NQ
While we're here Mike, I'd like to know your opinion on this sort of stuff

Part 1: https://youtu.be/hilN8eNp930
Part 2: https://youtu.be/wovUYvAX59s
Part 3: https://youtu.be/lmaeF9zjrBI
Part 4: https://youtu.be/p4d7naDAsKU

Especially the interaction of electro magnetic effects on cloud/storm formation and the apparent effects of high latitude plasma stream interaction with the poles and the affect on the jet streams at these locations. It would seem that such interactions have an effect on the Ozone layer and a subsequent corresponding high altitude effect on the polar vortex.
Just as much an unkonwn quantity on the Climate as anything else we apparently "KNOW" so far ?

Top
#1469771 - 30/08/2018 23:34 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: marakai]
Kino Online   content
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/08/2017
Posts: 2637
Loc: Wollongong, NSW, Aus
Great post!

Originally Posted By: marakai
Wow interesting, I only just came across this by accident Mike and must say thanks for providing a forum that might deal with some of these issues.

"So the models are all saying the same thing, and thats bad?"

It's not so much that they are all saying the same thing Mike, more so that they are all Wrong.
A model is only as good as it's input, and if you are ignoring that which is too difficult to "Model" then you are just creating a tool that agree's with your desired output. EG: Ignore Clouds, Oceanic Plankton, Seasonal water vapour fluctuations etc and all you get back is a basic computation rather than an accurate Model.

I think I'll let a physicist answer this one Properly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZN2jt2cCU4

"But if the models cannot be reproduced, how can they be saying the same thing?"

Quite easily Mike, Nearly all of them are using the same consensus input type data, ergo they all end up at the same conclusion or output. None of them use a full range of realistic input such as clouds etc as mentioned above. Each model is calibrated to a certain range of inputs and a button is pushed to ascertain an outcome. I might ask, if a Model is reliable in it's outcome what chance is there for a chaotic system such as that of the Earth to be accurately predicted ?

It would of been nice to be Quoted in full but here go's any way.

"Can't be in anyway Falsified, and time and again are found to be predicatively WRONG is not SCIENCE."

(Q"So being found wrong is somehow different to being falsified??")

Being found wrong time after time after time, and yet persevering with the same mantra in the face of incontrovertible evidence that you are wrong time after time and being given a free pass in the MSM for such Pseudo Science with gay abandon is detrimental not only to real Science but in time will undermine the field of science itself. You yourself must know that you can't use the failure of a Model to falsify a claim right ? The Model itself is not science to start with.
You might claim that a Model shows this or that based upon it's input, but if it fails it is just a model after all right ?


"Time and again we see all sort's of headlines with a claim of this or that regarding Weather or Catastrophic Climate events predicted by said reputable sources based upon "Models" which never eventuate, and which are never questioned either at the time of publishing nor afterwards after they haven't happened."

Q"No we don't. Can you post any examples?"

Just go look at the latest Q&A show from this week M8, Larissa Waters Former Green senator announcing to the world that HALF the Great Barrier Reef was dead now due to coral bleaching. Go listen to the last couple of days ABC News announcing that a New Bleaching event may be imminent based upon a convention of "Climate Scientist's" held over the last week or so.

Another half arsed quote: "Models are well and good, but...."

"They certainly are, but they are not perfect, and some people like to make a deal of the lack of perfection and/or post a lot of contradictory nonsense to try and discredit them."

Models are not SCIENCE, they are just models, and that is all they are.
They are not empirical, they are not evidence, they are not results.

And when it comes to estimating what might happen in decades to century's when it comes to the weather or climate they are guesstimates at their best.

Even the most skilled forecasters are hard up predicting the track of a tropical cyclone three days out with all the state of the art tools at their disposal, narrow that down to 24 hours out and they are still making best estimate guesses most of the time.

Think about that for a minute, they are using real time info and the very same computational models that they use for forecasting months, years and decades out to determine an actual real time situation, and yet are still guessing against nature.

The difference is that they are using actual real time observations to predict the next twelve to twenty four hours, as opposed to unknown and chaotic influences over years and decades yet still expect us to believe that the years and decades are predictable while they regularly mis predict the next 24 hrs of a weather system ?

A lot of Stuff keeps getting said, not much of it is accurate or actually happens despite all of the predictions. Endless warming and El Nino's, etc !



Top
#1469786 - 31/08/2018 09:43 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
adon Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 19/08/2004
Posts: 5328
Loc: Not tellin!
Well look who opened this can of worms...... I will be very interested to see if the moderators treat Mike the same way they have treated others?

As for the models used for preaching the gospel of global warming , they cannot possibly accurately predict how the climate will change let alone the anthropological component of any change when so many assumptions are made when entering data. Nobody knows what assumptions have been made and how much weight has been placed on these assumptions. I did see a video a long time ago highlighting an error in the formula used by climate models in dealing with positive feedback. They had used a formula from electrical engineering dealing with feedback into microphones(from memory). An error was made in the formula which returned a feedback several times the rate using the correct version. Of course this was highlighted and the modellers refused to amend the error(rather conveniently for them). I will try to find it again.

Top
#1469788 - 31/08/2018 10:02 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
adon Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 19/08/2004
Posts: 5328
Loc: Not tellin!
Short version https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=13ixRJ3lmFY

Long version skip to 24min to miss the fluff. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ebokc6z82cg&t=1476s

Top
#1469789 - 31/08/2018 10:04 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: marakai]
Mike Hauber Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 13/07/2007
Posts: 3307
Loc: Buderim
I didn't open the can of worms. I was trying to move disccusions that had been opened by others in the climate driver thread out of the climate driver thread.

Top
#1469792 - 31/08/2018 10:56 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: adon]
Kino Online   content
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/08/2017
Posts: 2637
Loc: Wollongong, NSW, Aus
Originally Posted By: adon
Well look who opened this can of worms...... I will be very interested to see if the moderators treat Mike the same way they have treated others?

As for the models used for preaching the gospel of global warming , they cannot possibly accurately predict how the climate will change let alone the anthropological component of any change when so many assumptions are made when entering data. Nobody knows what assumptions have been made and how much weight has been placed on these assumptions. I did see a video a long time ago highlighting an error in the formula used by climate models in dealing with positive feedback. They had used a formula from electrical engineering dealing with feedback into microphones(from memory). An error was made in the formula which returned a feedback several times the rate using the correct version. Of course this was highlighted and the modellers refused to amend the error(rather conveniently for them). I will try to find it again.


Nailed! If the assumptions aren't transparent then you can bet the result is manipulated and corrupt.

Top
#1469793 - 31/08/2018 11:21 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
Mega Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 03/02/2003
Posts: 7222
Loc: Maryborough, Wide Bay, QLD
So are we arguing that climate change isn't real and that the results derived from data over the past however many years has been manipulated?

Just trying to make sense of all this. And it only has to be a can of worms if you let it be.

Top
#1469795 - 31/08/2018 11:27 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mega]
Kino Online   content
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/08/2017
Posts: 2637
Loc: Wollongong, NSW, Aus
Originally Posted By: Mega
So are we arguing that climate change isn't real
no

Originally Posted By: Mega
and that the results derived from data over the past however many years has been manipulated?
Yes

Top
#1469798 - 31/08/2018 11:42 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
Mega Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 03/02/2003
Posts: 7222
Loc: Maryborough, Wide Bay, QLD
Hmmm ok. I guess the question is how would we ever know? I am still largely on the fence with this since I think vaid arguments could be presented from both sides. One of the ones I have (and I don't even know if it's relevant lol) is that taking data from the last 100 - 200 years is only a tiny piece of the earths' history so how would we know that it hasn't happened before, say thousands of years ago? The other one is how people keep relating extreme weather events to climate change when most have happened before and will happen again. It's getting a little overblown when people keep doing this.

Anyway, back to lurking, lol.

Top
#1469800 - 31/08/2018 11:52 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mega]
Kino Online   content
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/08/2017
Posts: 2637
Loc: Wollongong, NSW, Aus
Originally Posted By: Mega
Hmmm ok. I guess the question is how would we ever know? I am still largely on the fence with this since I think vaid arguments could be presented from both sides.


Agree re: change - it has changed over the eons the planet has been around, which is clear from archaeological digs etc. What were the drivers then? Why are those drivers so insignificant now?

Re: modelling well, we can know if they released their assumptions.

Top
#1469801 - 31/08/2018 11:55 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
Eigerwand Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 28/05/2012
Posts: 321
All y’all too worried about models and he say she say. Climate change and ecosystems response to such change set against what can be accurately surmised as the climates natural variability is to a better than not degree of certainty happening at too fast arate.

Honestly I’m so sick of reading people’s crap about this stuff. Go ask the Inuit if they think the climates following some normal variable trend. There’s so much actual ecological response but tards want to sit back and ask for valid computer models. Disgusting.

Top
#1469804 - 31/08/2018 12:34 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Eigerwand]
marakai Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 05/01/2006
Posts: 1904
Loc: Maryfarms NQ
Originally Posted By: Eigerwand
All y’all too worried about models and he say she say. Climate change and ecosystems response to such change set against what can be accurately surmised as the climates natural variability is to a better than not degree of certainty happening at too fast arate.

Honestly I’m so sick of reading people’s crap about this stuff. Go ask the Inuit if they think the climates following some normal variable trend. There’s so much actual ecological response but tards want to sit back and ask for valid computer models. Disgusting.


Not entirely accurate there Eigerwald

Quote:
Ice Core Reveals How Quickly Climate Can Change

Weather patterns can permanently shift in as little as a year, according to the records preserved in an ice core from Greenland
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-core-reveals-how-quickly-climate-can-change/

Also, it's not so much that the models posed are constantly wrong but that public policy is based on said models.

Inaccurate and alarming modeling is used to justify an increase in power prices via the subsidizing of renewable's which in turn still need gas or coal fired backup to maintain grid stability and all while there is still not any empirical evidence whatsoever that the use of Cheap Coal fired electricity generation has any effect on "weather" at all.

Your right, it is Tarded and Disgusting!

Top
#1469806 - 31/08/2018 12:39 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
sou Offline
Cloud Gazer

Registered: 19/02/2015
Posts: 48
Loc: Katoomba
The idea that scientists and meteorologists are manipulating data for their own nefarious ends is completely absurd. Why don't you consider who REALLY stands to benefit from manipulating (ignoring, obfuscating etc) data? Could it be that companies (and associated beneficiaries) who profit obscenely from fossil fuels might be less trustworthy than scientists? Bah, you're probably right. It's all a scam to get those lucrative grants! flipping hell guys.

Top
#1469807 - 31/08/2018 12:50 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
sou Offline
Cloud Gazer

Registered: 19/02/2015
Posts: 48
Loc: Katoomba
"Inaccurate and alarming modeling is used to justify an increase in power prices via the subsidizing of renewable's.."
Not exactly. 41% of the increase in electricity prices over the last 10 years has been in network costs, extra retail charges account for 24%, green energy @16%. That's according to Rod Sims of the ACCC.

Top
#1469809 - 31/08/2018 13:03 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
Mike Hauber Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 13/07/2007
Posts: 3307
Loc: Buderim
If the models could be manipulated to show what the evil conspiracy cabal want, then why doesn't someone from outside the conspiracy manipulate a climate model to show 'the truth'. Some models may be super expensive and require big fancy computers to run on, and so perhaps can only be operated by members of the evil conspiracy (although even there I would think fossil fuel money would be enough to get such a model running if there was any reasonable chance it would show what they want it to). Others are open source and can run on anyone's home pc.

The only data that I have ever heard the model critics complain about being manipulated is the temperature data. But that is an output of the model, never an input. So the outputs match what we observe well enough that the critics complain that the observations have been fudged to match the models.

Inputs into models are stuff like radiation levels, cloud parameters, ocean physics, geography etc etc, and I have never seen any direct evidence that such data is being fudged. I have seen the occasional accusations that stuff like cloud parameters (one of the biggest real difficulties in models) can be chosen to produce any result the modellers want, but then the question is why hasn't someone chosen a cloud parameter that produces a model outcome outside the consensus?

Top
#1469811 - 31/08/2018 14:00 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Eigerwand]
Petros Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 30/12/2002
Posts: 7373
Loc: Maffra, Central Gippsland, Vi...
Originally Posted By: Eigerwand
...... Go ask the Inuit if they think the climates following some normal variable trend. There’s so much actual ecological response but tards want to sit back and ask for valid computer models. Disgusting.


What would they say Eiger?

Top
#1469812 - 31/08/2018 14:09 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: sou]
Petros Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 30/12/2002
Posts: 7373
Loc: Maffra, Central Gippsland, Vi...
Originally Posted By: sou
"Inaccurate and alarming modeling is used to justify an increase in power prices via the subsidizing of renewable's.."
Not exactly. 41% of the increase in electricity prices over the last 10 years has been in network costs, extra retail charges account for 24%, green energy @16%. That's according to Rod Sims of the ACCC.


Havent seen any Rod Sims articles myself Sou.

.....But you can educate yourself by visiting AEMO website and downloading the NEM electricity wholesale prices over the past 4 years before ideologically inspired closure of coal fired power stations.

Then you can wonder to yourself why this huge escalation isnt mentioned by Sim's (assuming you have quoted him correctly).

Top
#1469822 - 31/08/2018 15:54 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
Funkyseefunkydo Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 30/04/2007
Posts: 692
Loc: East Lake Macquarie
Yeah! F [censored] scientists! What would they know!


Edited by Funkyseefunkydo (31/08/2018 15:54)

Top
Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 >


Who's Online
13 registered (Kino, Colin Maitland, DDstorm, DaveD, Homer, Summ3r, Nature's Fury, martyface, Foehn Correspondent, Bundy, Taylsy, scott12, 1 invisible), 384 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Today's Birthdays
alby, controler, NCSC - Antonio, puca
Forum Stats
29681 Members
32 Forums
23981 Topics
1501044 Posts

Max Online: 2925 @ 02/02/2011 22:23
Satellite Image