Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#1,377
#1,377
TennTradition said:
I was giving you too much credit.

Let me review for you.

1) I saw obviously (climate) models are sensitive to (accurate) inputs

2) You say obvious only to AGW supporters

3) I say obvious to anyone who understands how models work.

4) You disagree. You say it's obvious only to AGW supporters yet you agree all models are sensitive to their inputs.

Are you saying only AGW supporters are intelligent enough for this point you know to be true to be obvious instead?

I'm sorry but saying models are sensitive to their inputs - whether that be a climate model or a reaction model - is not a herd mentality. It is understanding how models work.

That is the point my post was making in saying something was obvious so I have no idea what you are disagreeing with.
Click to expand...

Its the "accurate inputs" that are not obvious. And, its not obvious that these probability models can predict climate sensitivity at all. Again, if they could you'd have a better track record.
 
#1,378
#1,378
Sandvol said:
Its the "accurate inputs" that are not obvious. And, its not obvious that these probability models can predict climate sensitivity at all. Again, if they could you'd have a better track record.
Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about climate sensitivity. I said climate models are sensitive to accurate inputs.

In other words, they need accurate inputs first before we can hope to model anything - or you need reasonable probability distributions when you don't know inputs with precision.

This is modeling 101 for ANY model. (Just a FYI, you want to trust me on this.)

You either are blinded by disdain for the science of studying climate change or you can't read.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,380
#1,380
TennTradition said:
I didn't say anything about climate sensitivity. I said climate models are sensitive to accurate inputs.

In other words, they need accurate inputs first before we can hope to model anything - or you need reasonable probability distributions when you don't know inputs with precision.

This is modeling 101 for ANY model. (Just a FYI, you want to trust me on this.)

You either are blinded by disdain for the science of studying climate change or you can't read.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with the real world? Nothing.

Your disdain for people who want you to come up with one factual piece of evidence and not hypothetical models is apparent.
 
Last edited:
#1,381
#1,381
Sandvol said:
Its the "accurate inputs" that are not obvious. And, its not obvious that these probability models can predict climate sensitivity at all. Again, if they could you'd have a better track record.
Click to expand...

You also clearly responded to my post saying "obvious only to AGW supporters".

My post clearly said 'obviously, climate models are sensitive to accurate inputs'.

You were saying that this sensitivity was obvious only to AGW supporters. Which I said made no sense.

Now you're changing your tune and saying that it is the accurate inputs that are only obvious to AGW supporters?

Man. Maybe you can't read.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,383
#1,383
Persian Vol said:
So what? CO2 emission and Global temperatures have increased. I never said there was definitive proof, I was just saying that there is a correlation.
Click to expand...

No you said,

"As co2 emissions have increased, global temperatures have increased as well."

That is incorrect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,384
#1,384
TennTradition said:
You also clearly responded to my post saying "obvious only to AGW supporters".

My post clearly said 'obviously, climate models are sensitive to accurate inputs'.

You were saying that this sensitivity was obvious only to AGW supporters. Which I said made no sense.

Now you're changing your tune and saying that it is the accurate inputs that are only obvious to AGW supporters?

Man. Maybe you can't read.
Click to expand...

Yes, going back and re-reading what you said I misinterpreted your meaning.
 
#1,385
#1,385
Sandvol said:
What does that have to do with the real world? Nothing.

Your disdain for people who want you to come up with one factual piece of evidence and not hypothetical models is apparent.
Click to expand...

It has something to do with the context of this conversation!

You said something ridiculous, I asked what the heck it meant, you scooted arriving trying to come up with something and now you've ultimately arrived at ignoring the stupid comment you made and trying to deflect attention away from it by snapping your fingers in the other direction.

I have held a conversation with you for days, describing what I understand to be accurate about the current state of climate modeling and how it reflects on AGW science. I haven't called you out for your thoughts on it - yet you have often stated I either didn't know what I was talking about or that I was essentially just a sheep. Yet I am the one showing disdain for YOUR thoughts on this?

The only think I am showing disdain for I this discussion throwing out another comment of grouping all AGW 'supporters' together in a way that made absolutely no sense. The crux of my comment was modeling science - not AGW, yet you couldn't resist showing your butt yet again.

I take exception with that. Logic is logic. Reading is reading. Just because we're discussing AGW doesn't mean you should let your disdain for it cloud your ability to read or apply logic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,387
#1,387
Sandvol said:
No you said,

"As co2 emissions have increased, global temperatures have increased as well."

That is incorrect.
Click to expand...

Ok I'll retract as, but how can you say it is incorrect? What DEFINITIVE proof do you have that it does not make an impact.
 
#1,390
#1,390
TennTradition said:
It has something to do with the context of this conversation!

You said something ridiculous, I asked what the heck it meant, you scooted arriving trying to come up with something and now you've ultimately arrived at ignoring the stupid comment you made and trying to deflect attention away from it by snapping your fingers in the other direction.

I have held a conversation with you for days, describing what I understand to be accurate about the current state of climate modeling and how it reflects on AGW science. I haven't called you out for your thoughts on it - yet you have often stated I either didn't know what I was talking about or that I was essentially just a sheep. Yet I am the one showing disdain for YOUR thoughts on this?

The only think I am showing disdain for I this discussion throwing out another comment of grouping all AGW 'supporters' together in a way that made absolutely no sense. The crux of my comment was modeling science - not AGW, yet you couldn't resist showing your butt yet again.

I take exception with that. Logic is logic. Reading is reading. Just because we're discussing AGW doesn't mean you should let your disdain for it cloud your ability to read or apply logic.
Click to expand...

Yes you are correct. I believe most of you global warming guys are hard working guys who probably mean well and believe in their work but I do believe you are sheep. I don't believe your models fit the real world and you create models designed to predict the worst possible out comes. I don't mean to be offensive to you but you come on here and talk about models and probability distributions as if they had any connection to the real world. Your wording and sentence structure has been intentionally vague but I knew I'd eventually get the "real" you out. Also, even the IPCC says there has been a 15 or 16 year pause and you don't even accept that. You are an obvious fanatic trying to disguise yourself as an objective scientist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,392
#1,392
Yep. You got me. A fanatic.

I'm just looking at the temperature record when I say a 15-16 year pause doesn't really make sense. It warmed from 99-2006 or do. Then flattened out or even dropped. I don't think I'm being fanatical for seeing it that way. Perhaps they have different data?

Models are tools for better understanding the real world around us. Always have been.

That is actually where a lot of my interest I'm AGW comes from. Climate is a very interesting model.

As for the 'real' me, I just want informed, intellectually honest conversation. You will see me get annoyed when someone throws something out that has no basis or makes no sense, such as "obvious only to AGW supporters." Statements like that when they don't even make sense aren't productive and I'll call it out.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,394
#1,394
TennTradition said:
Yep. You got me. A fanatic.

I'm just looking at the temperature record when I say a 15-16 year pause doesn't really make sense. It warmed from 99-2006 or do. Then flattened out or even dropped. I don't think I'm being fanatical for seeing it that way. Perhaps they have different data?

Models are tools for better understanding the real world around us. Always have been.

That is actually where a lot of my interest I'm AGW comes from. Climate is a very interesting model.
Click to expand...

It's you guys who said it!
 
#1,399
#1,399
Sandvol said:
IPCC.

I know you're not officially one but you are in spirit.

(Well, I don't know if you're not officially one.)
Click to expand...

I'm not. The climate stuff is not professional for me.

I'm just saying maybe the IPCC is looking at different plots than me. Because I still see a steady trend up until about 2006.
 
#1,400
#1,400
Sandvol said:
I've read articles from climate scientists that the data pre-1970 is unreliable. That is why so much emphasis is placed on data from the last few decades.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about that. Perhaps land temperature measurements globally are. That seems a bit odd at face value though. Seems a bit late to not be able to trust it but I don't know what their issues were.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top