Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (751988)	11/10/2013 5:18:15 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	4 Recommendations Recommended By Bob FJB MichaelSkyy TimF Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1575539

OK, Jorje, now you are simply lying through your teeth. See the IPCC report on climate models below. It is to you I have to ask whether you really think that you can make shit up and not get called on it. You should be careful when accusing me of lying through my teeth, especially when you provide the proof of my argument as the evidence against me. The long-term climate model simulations show a trend in global-mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2012 that agrees with the observed trend (very high confidence). There are, however, differences between simulated and observed trends over periods as short as 10 to 15 years (e.g., 1998 to 2012). {9.4, Box 9.2} So they are clearly pointing out that for the past 15 years they observed trends have not followed the simulated trends. In other words, their models had absolutely no predictive value. Here's what I said: "sorry, global temperatures have been essentially flat for the past 15 years. Their models predicted significant increases in this time period". Show me how the IPCC report contradicts what I stated. Show me how I am lying. In the 1970s, climatologists were worried about the next ice age. In the early 1980s, the climatologists switched their concern to warming. The IPCC was established in 1988. Their first assessment report was in 1990. So if you want to go by the first assessment report, their models were essentially accurate for 8 years before they failed for the next 15 years. I'd call that worse than zero predictive value. Coming up with a model that predicts the past is not that great of a feat. Many people here on SI are familiar with people who put together computer models to predict stock market behavior. You'll hear the guys who put the models together refer to "back tested to 1920 with 95% correlation" and shit like that. But when it comes to predicting future behavior of the stock market, you would be hard put to find even one model that has any long term predictive value. How can models/simulations be so accurate when backtesting, but fail as a predictive tool? Could it be because the models are actually designed to correlate with what they know to be true, (i.e.: the past)? Point being, predicting the past doesn't count. If their models cannot predict the future better than a coin toss, than either their models are wrong or their data is wrong...or both. The observed reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998–2012 as compared to the period 1951–2012, Once again, confirming my statement. is due in roughly equal measure to a reduced trend in radiative forcing and a cooling contribution from internal variability, which includes a possible redistribution of heat within the ocean (medium confidence). So, they are saying that the cooling isn't really cooling, that the heat is there, even if they can't measure it. It went somewhere, probably the oceans, but they aren't really sure. With that kind of accuracy and certainty, I'm surprised that there are any skeptics left at all!!! The reduced trend in radiative forcing is primarily due to volcanic eruptions and the timing of the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle. Yeah, except that there hasn't been any meaningful increase in the average number of volcanoes erupting per year (usually 50 to 60/year). And in the past 15 years there hasn't been any increase in the larger eruptions that have a dramatic cooling effect on global temperatures. Further, are they saying that they didn't build the sun's 11 year cycle into their models? really? REALLY?!?! So basically, you are saying that I am a liar, in spite of the fact that you posted the confirmations of what I stated, because the climatologist are really confident that their models are right. That's some powerful critical thinking right there!!!

To: RetiredNow who wrote (751988)	11/10/2013 5:18:45 PM
From: Bilow	4 Recommendations Recommended By Brumar89 Joe Btfsplk Jorj X Mckie TimF Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575539

Hi mindmeld; Since you're obviously quite stupid, I'll explain the IPCC report to you. The paragraph of interest is: The long-term climate model simulations show a trend in global-mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2012 that agrees with the observed trend (very high confidence). There are, however, differences between simulated and observed trends over periods as short as 10 to 15 years (e.g., 1998 to 2012). {9.4, Box 9.2} Obviously you don't want to think about the second sentence, the "differences between simulated and observed trends". It doesn't help your case much. So you deny it's important. Let's take a more careful look at the first sentence. The simulations show a trend that agrees with the observed trend from 1951 to 2012. You apparently find that very convincing. What does it really mean? How difficult is it to write a simulation that agrees with the climate data from 1951 to 2012? Heck that's 50 years of predictions! Anyone who can do that surely is a genius! They've got to be Nobel prize-winning caliber! That will convince Freeman Dyson that climate science isn't junk! (See en.wikipedia.org ) But the simulations weren't written in 1951. Let's assume they were written in 1990. What do you think any researcher would do if his 1990 simulation didn't match the trend from 1951 to 1990? That's right, he would [tell his graduate student to] change his simulation. The simulations that failed don't get published. So the researchers change their simulations until they match the data from 1951 to 1990. And since most of the years between 1951 and 2012 are also between 1951 and 1990, it's hardly surprising that the simulations "agree with the observed trend". Let me rewrite that phrase for you: "are not wildly incompatible with the observed trend", because that's all that simulations can do. If they match within the error bars for the data, they are not incompatible. In short, the climate models succeeded in approximating the past but failed in approximating the future. -- Carl