Lectro was RIGHT--post1626--(climate related)

[ChrisL68]

"Parts of the US state of Hawaii have received a winter weather warning, with up to three feet (90cm) of snow over the past few days."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38199730

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

[pourdeac]

1990? They've done four more of these: 1995, 2001, 2007, 2014.

"Not only has the IPCC done remarkably well in projecting future global surface temperature changes thus far, but it has also performed far better than the few climate contrarians who have put their money where their mouth is with their own predictions."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/contary-to-contrarians-ipcc-temp-projections-accurate.html

Sure they did, I just went back to the first one because that was when they were a bit more honest. But I always love these types of analysis. So they were accurate within their "uncertainty". LOL. Yeah because THAT is so large, you could claim anything that happens would be accurate! That's part of the problem with their entire climate model. The uncertainty for any conclusion they make is huge and it's a built in excuse when they need it. That's part of how they dodge all the criticism.

But are you not paying attention to what they are saying? THEY say we can not get accurate models until we understand the relationship between the ocean and the atmosphere. That's not me, that's them. We still do not have that knowledge.

So explain to me how unrealistic models of the climate are able to accurately predict/explain the climate. How is that possible??? Can't wait for the handwaving.

 

[pourdeac]

Pour, you are some sort of physicist, correct? That might explain your intolerance of wide prediction intervals.

I asked for a citation for the statement that 100% of climate predictions are wrong and you respond with two or theee 25 year old predictions that were off by a few degrees. Ok, color me convinced.

You seem to have really high expectations for precision of prediction intervals. The systems these folks are trying to model are very stochastic and their data and parameters are subject to high parametric uncertainty. When you just look at the median prediction without considering the prediction interval, of course it is going to be wrong. I'll grant you that the number often reported is the measure of central tendency and not the upper and lower bound, but that is a failure of science communication, not a failure of science. To me, making a model to predict the future of a highly stochastic and uncertain system then pointing out caveats like, 'this is all highly dependent on the H2O cycle and we have high uncertainty in how that cycle works', is exactly how this should be done. In an applied context and management focused science we can't always wait until the model is perfect before making a prediction, we have to use the best available information to construct a model that will hopefully make useful predictions to help decision makers make good decisions. Waiting until you have all the information before build a model and making predictions might make the predictions more accurate, but you might also be waiting until it is too late for your model to be useful; i.e. Too late to do anything the amazingly precise prediction you have.

My intolerance for wide prediction intervals? Wide prediction intervals = inaccurate in the real world. When you want to claim to accurately predict something, especially something as small as the temperature changes the climate guys are claiming, you can't have wide prediction intervals and be relevant.

It's also a misnomer to claim that there is a failure of science communication. THEY state numbers like "X° increase" within 95% certainty in the IPCC. People are formulating expectations and policy based on those STATED numbers.

I completely understand what that number really is......a median number that has a huge degree of real uncertainty around it. I've been saying that for 20+ years as a criticism for relying on these models. The comical thing was in the beginning they weren't even stating uncertainty. The community wasn't addressing it at all....and what does that tell you about their understanding of modeling? They were forced to add it, so when you look through each successive IPCC report, their focus on error and uncertainty increases. Eventually, that increased focus on uncertainty is what cratered their original explanation of temp changes from 1900 to the mid 1970s..and cratered their claims about severe weather. Like I said, modeling fail. They can't be accurate.

I don't have a problem at all with the process of building climate models and using them to test hypotheses and observation. That's fine. I use models and have to make modeling decisions all the time, economic decisions too. Making dramatic conclusions that can not possibly be made from them is the issue. If the model is so imprecise because of the uncertainty which even you agree with AND is so non-realistic because we don't have a clue about the fundamental drivers of these processes which is what they are saying, what exactly do we have scientifically? Nothing. You can state nothing of relevance scientifically other than we might want to study it further. What other scientific interpretation is there?

So if you still want to believe in this problem because it "might be too late if we don't", go ahead but that means you believe in a doomsday religion, not science. It's 100% belief.

 

[birdman]

My intolerance for wide prediction intervals? Wide prediction intervals = inaccurate in the real world. When you want to claim to accurately predict something, especially something as small as the temperature changes the climate guys are claiming, you can't have wide prediction intervals and be relevant.

It's also a misnomer to claim that there is a failure of science communication. THEY state numbers like "X° increase" within 95% certainty in the IPCC. People are formulating expectations and policy based on those STATED numbers.

I completely understand what that number really is......a median number that has a huge degree of real uncertainty around it. I've been saying that for 20+ years as a criticism for relying on these models. The comical thing was in the beginning they weren't even stating uncertainty. The community wasn't addressing it at all....and what does that tell you about their understanding of modeling? They were forced to add it, so when you look through each successive IPCC report, their focus on error and uncertainty increases. Eventually, that increased focus on uncertainty is what cratered their original explanation of temp changes from 1900 to the mid 1970s..and cratered their claims about severe weather. Like I said, modeling fail. They can't be accurate.

I don't have a problem at all with the process of building climate models and using them to test hypotheses and observation. That's fine. I use models and have to make modeling decisions all the time, economic decisions too. Making dramatic conclusions that can not possibly be made from them is the issue. If the model is so imprecise because of the uncertainty which even you agree with AND is so non-realistic because we don't have a clue about the fundamental drivers of these processes which is what they are saying, what exactly do we have scientifically? Nothing. You can state nothing of relevance scientifically other than we might want to study it further. What other scientific interpretation is there?

So if you still want to believe in this problem because it "might be too late if we don't", go ahead but that means you believe in a doomsday religion, not science. It's 100% belief.

There is belief in all of science....at least that's what we Bayesian adherents believe

See this is where a risk analysis comes in. What is at stake if the predictions are correct, what's at stake if they are wrong and what is the probability of either. That is an honest and transparent way to build a policy based on uncertain science. The reality is that policy keeps moving whether or not the science is ready and so we have to use uncertain science, assess the depth of that uncertainty and what is at risk if we act or don't act. Instead of engaging in some sort of useful discourse on the issue of climate change, the probabilities and risks involved, the whole conversation has devolved into denial of the other sides perspective and name calling.

 

[pourdeac]

For the record, I'm not a physicist, I'm a chemist involved with drug discovery so we use a lot of very sophisticated modeling.

We can tolerate models with high uncertainty, but only when we can use large numbers to overcome the uncertainty. So we might run a scaffold hopping exercise to predict the binding of novel structures to a particular receptor. The receptor model is no doubt inaccurate (especially solvated and if membrane bound), the structures of the compounds are likely incorrect, and the mode of binding is likely wrong...so there is a high degree of uncertainty with all three....but the model is often good enough when you look 100k different scaffolds. We can usually identify 200-300 potential chemical hits from the in silico run, and while the actual hit rate from there might only be at best 1-2% ie only 2-4 of those actually work, that's all we need to get a med chem lead. So modeling.....when it works.....can be more economical than screening all 100k and dealing with the screening uncertainty (false positives/false negatives).

But that kind of approach often fails completely so we have to make decisions about how much uncertainty exists with the modeling when making those decisions. Right now we use modeling if the assay is not very sensitive for screening because a poor assay increases the uncertainty of the screen and the computational approach is cheaper. So I have to deal with these issues in a real world setting all the time.

I also see computational chemists grossly exaggerate their capabilities...just like the climate crowd. I went to the first in silico drug discovery conference a couple of years ago here in RTP. All the big names were there and some were selling modeling as THE savior for big pharma...if only the med chemists would trust them. Some seriously believed they could predict anything with high accuracy, the sort of thing where we would never again have to actually make and test potential drug candidates. It's complete BS. There is not one example of that ever happening........just too much uncertainty. They can certainly claim they were accurate within their prediction intervals though if they want. .

I have gone through the same sort of steps convincing my computational guru friends (including several SAS computational guys) of my take on the climate models...and they have all pretty much agreed with me in the end, kind of like you going in that direction above. It is what it is. Lipstick/pig...pig.

 

[birdman]

For the record, I'm not a physicist, I'm a chemist involved with drug discovery so we use a lot of very sophisticated modeling.

We can tolerate models with high uncertainty, but only when we can use large numbers to overcome the uncertainty. So we might run a scaffold hopping exercise to predict the binding of novel structures to a particular receptor. The receptor model is no doubt inaccurate (especially solvated and if membrane bound), the structures of the compounds are likely incorrect, and the mode of binding is likely wrong...so there is a high degree of uncertainty with all three....but the model is often good enough when you look 100k different scaffolds. We can usually identify 200-300 potential chemical hits from the in silico run, and while the actual hit rate from there might only be at best 1-2% ie only 2-4 of those actually work, that's all we need to get a med chem lead. So modeling.....when it works.....can be more economical than screening all 100k and dealing with the screening uncertainty (false positives/false negatives).

But that kind of approach often fails completely so we have to make decisions about how much uncertainty exists with the modeling when making those decisions. Right now we use modeling if the assay is not very sensitive for screening because a poor assay increases the uncertainty of the screen and the computational approach is cheaper. So I have to deal with these issues in a real world setting all the time.

I also see computational chemists grossly exaggerate their capabilities...just like the climate crowd. I went to the first in silico drug discovery conference a couple of years ago here in RTP. All the big names were there and some were selling modeling as THE savior for big pharma...if only the med chemists would trust them. Some seriously believed they could predict anything with high accuracy, the sort of thing where we would never again have to actually make and test potential drug candidates. It's complete BS. There is not one example of that ever happening........just too much uncertainty. They can certainly claim they were accurate within their prediction intervals though if they want. .

I have gone through the same sort of steps convincing my computational guru friends (including several SAS computational guys) of my take on the climate models...and they have all pretty much agreed with me in the end, kind of like you going in that direction above. It is what it is. Lipstick/pig...pig.

Hold on now, I wouldn't say I suddenly agree with you. I am just more willing than most environmentalists to admit uncertainty. All models are wrong, every single one of them, but some models are useful. All along I have been saying this is really about risk assessment because the climate alarmist are uncertain about their predictions and the climate change denialists are also uncertain about their predictions and so the rational way to proceed is to assess the probabilities of each being true, determine what we are willing to risk and do some cost benefit analysis. That is hardly in agreement with your position that all these models are wrong and therefore we should just ignore it.

Btw, SAS is for losers. R and JAGS is where it's at.

 

[pourdeac]

There is belief in all of science....at least that's what we Bayesian adherents believe

See this is where a risk analysis comes in. What is at stake if the predictions are correct, what's at stake if they are wrong and what is the probability of either. That is an honest and transparent way to build a policy based on uncertain science. The reality is that policy keeps moving whether or not the science is ready and so we have to use uncertain science, assess the depth of that uncertainty and what is at risk if we act or don't act. Instead of engaging in some sort of useful discourse on the issue of climate change, the probabilities and risks involved, the whole conversation has devolved into denial of the other sides perspective and name calling.

Hahahaha.....I keep telling my colleague (and modeler guru) in the office next to me.

The predictions can't be correct if they are based on unrealistic science and highly uncertain so how do you realistically evaluate that risk? And remember, the causation mechanism itself...ie the mechanism of greenhouse gases...is also not known or understood. A lot of data has suggested that it's water evaporation that transfers the heat, not radiation (which would have to occur if a greenhouse effect is real). In one of the more bizarre handwaving exercises, people were trying to rationalize that the outer atmosphere cooling was proof of the greenhouse effect. Not sure they understand thermodynamics.

If you want to push the policy forward because you believe in being anti-CO2, go right ahead, but just don't pretend it's based on solid science. Don't run around trying to condemn critics like a fascist Spanish inquisition claiming they are anti-science or science deniers...for not pushing a policy that you yourself are calling uncertain. THAT is what has caused this entire "debate" to devolve into extremism.

If we start to believe every uncertain scientific theory, religion will certainly have a come back.

I will stick to the original Pauling theory based on thermodynamics that is long forgotten..most of the change is solar. A secondary driver exists (probably ocean changes) that affects 5-10% of it. IFF that 5-10% change happens to be man made CO2 as a worst case scenario which is highly unlikely, so what? Reversing that would have no real effect on anything....so there is no risk.

 

[pourdeac]

Hold on now, I wouldn't say I suddenly agree with you. I am just more willing than most environmentalists to admit uncertainty. All models are wrong, every single one of them, but some models are useful. All along I have been saying this is really about risk assessment because the climate alarmist are uncertain about their predictions and the climate change denialists are also uncertain about their predictions and so the rational way to proceed is to assess the probabilities of each being true, determine what we are willing to risk and do some cost benefit analysis. That is hardly in agreement with your position that all these models are wrong and therefore we should just ignore it.

Well hold now...I never said you agreed with me......yet.....you're just going in the same direction as others.

 

[birdman]

Hahahaha.....I keep telling my colleague (and modeler guru) in the office next to me.

The predictions can't be correct if they are based on unrealistic science and highly uncertain so how do you realistically evaluate that risk? And remember, the causation mechanism itself...ie the mechanism of greenhouse gases...is also not known or understood. A lot of data has suggested that it's water evaporation that transfers the heat, not radiation (which would have to occur if a greenhouse effect is real). In one of the more bizarre handwaving exercises, people were trying to rationalize that the outer atmosphere cooling was proof of the greenhouse effect. Not sure they understand thermodynamics.

If you want to push the policy forward because you believe in being anti-CO2, go right ahead, but just don't pretend it's based on solid science. Don't run around trying to condemn critics like a fascist Spanish inquisition claiming they are anti-science or science deniers...for not pushing a policy that you yourself are calling uncertain. THAT is what has caused this entire "debate" to devolve into extremism.

If we start to believe every uncertain scientific theory, religion will certainly have a come back.

I will stick to the original Pauling theory based on thermodynamics that is long forgotten..most of the change is solar. A secondary driver exists (probably ocean changes) that affects 5-10% of it. IFF that 5-10% change happens to be man made CO2 as a worst case scenario which is highly unlikely, so what? Reversing that would have no real effect on anything....so there is no risk.

Undoubtedly you've seen this, but:

 

[birdman]

Well hold now...I never said you agreed with me......yet.....you're just going in the same direction as others.

I am not sure I am moving in any direction here. I am not advocating for any specific policy action with respect to Co2. I have for a long time believed that it doesn't matter if climate change has a human cause or not, the change is happening and we need to have a serious conversation about the consequences and things we might be able to do to alleviate the effects. At a minimum, we are faced with massive disruptions to our coastal living arrangement and we are faced with a massive biodiversity collapse, much of which is climate related and will be increasingly so if change continues unabated or unmitigated. If a 5% affect is all we can expect from eliminating or severely reducing CO2, maybe that is worth the effort if it saves a few species or if it saves a few inches of SLR. And if 5% is all we can expect, what else are we as a society going to do to mitigate these effects, other than closing our eyes and ears, throwing snowballs around the Senate and pretending there is nothing going on here.

 

[BobStackFan4Life]

This biologist has decided we're all gonna be fucked within the next ten years so it's best to live your life to the fullest while you can.
Humans ‘don’t have 10 years’ left thanks to climate change – scientist

There’s no point trying to fight climate change – we’ll all be dead in the next decade and there’s nothing we can do to stop it, a visiting scientist claims.

Guy McPherson, a biology professor at the University of Arizona, says the human destruction of our own habitat is leading towards the world’s sixth mass extinction.

Instead of fighting, he says we should just embrace it and live life while we can.

“It’s locked down, it’s been locked in for a long time – we’re in the midst of our sixth mass extinction,” he told Paul Henry on Thursday.

“I can’t imagine there will be a human on the planet in 10 years,” he says.

“We don’t have 10 years. The problem is when I give a number like that, people think it’s going to be business as usual until nine years [and] 364 days.”

He says part of the reason he’s given up while other scientists fight on is because they’re looking at individual parts, such as methane emissions and the melting ice in the Arctic, instead of the entire picture.

“We’re heading for a temperature within that span that is at or near the highest temperature experienced on Earth in the last 2 billion years.”

Instead of trying to fix the climate, Prof McPherson says we should focus on living while we can.

“I think hope is a horrible idea. Hope is wishful thinking. Hope is a bad idea – let’s abandon that and get on with reality instead. Let’s get on with living instead of wishing for the future that never comes.

“I encourage people to pursue excellence, to pursue love, to pursue what they love to do. I don’t think these are crazy ideas, actually – and I also encourage people to remain calm because nothing is under control, certainly not under our control anyway.”

http://churchandstate.org.uk/2016/11/humans-dont-have-10-years-left-thanks-to-climate-change-scientist/

 

[ImTheCaptain]

kinda makes that boeing thing pretty pointless

 

[pourdeac]

I am not sure I am moving in any direction here. I am not advocating for any specific policy action with respect to Co2. I have for a long time believed that it doesn't matter if climate change has a human cause or not, the change is happening and we need to have a serious conversation about the consequences and things we might be able to do to alleviate the effects. At a minimum, we are faced with massive disruptions to our coastal living arrangement and we are faced with a massive biodiversity collapse, much of which is climate related and will be increasingly so if change continues unabated or unmitigated. If a 5% affect is all we can expect from eliminating or severely reducing CO2, maybe that is worth the effort if it saves a few species or if it saves a few inches of SLR. And if 5% is all we can expect, what else are we as a society going to do to mitigate these effects, other than closing our eyes and ears, throwing snowballs around the Senate and pretending there is nothing going on here.

That was actually Bush's original policy but it quickly turned into a "he's a witch" hunt because he didn't believe 100% in the climate models.

No one is saying to close their eyes or ears, we just don't need to go down this draconian pathway to solve a problem we don't even know is real on just about every level. You are willingly buying into a theory that is fundamentally unrealistic and highly uncertain. Why? You are citing problems like massive disruptions to coastal living and massive biodiversity collapses that have no real basis, it's just more conjecture on top of all the others. Why?

And some of these so called solutions might be making things worse BECAUSE we don't understand the science. Years ago on here I predicted that the focus would turn to water....the real driver.....that's when we'd know the CO2 theory was in collapse. That's slowly starting to happen because it's all about the ocean/atmosphere coupling and if this recent spike in temps reverses post strong El Nino/Blob....that link will just be reinforced and then we'll actually start to question the greenhouse theory itself (finally).

Burning hydrocarbons releases MORE water than CO2 so IMO the activists will turn to that as they move away from CO2 because they can still be big oil haters. The CO2 crowd ignores the increase in water because they assume the water cycle is constant and it will just precipitate back out (which we don't know). The problem is, the smaller the chain length, the more water is formed. If the problem really is water evaporation/heat transfer in the lower atmosphere, then moving to natural gas and H2......both considered cleaner in today's carbon-centric scary world.....would both be worse. In fact the more life on earth, the worse we'd be because everything emits water. We could stop singling out cows!

 

[pourdeac]

Undoubtedly you've seen this, but:

Yes, I've seen that kind of thing and it's just a lot more conjecture based on some mythical energy footprint that we don't even know and can't possibly be zero any time soon. Energy independence? Doubtful and we could be that way with carbon if we wanted. Preserve rainforests? A hotter planet is actually better for them. Sustainability? Maybe but there's always a footprint of some kind. Green jobs is a buzz world that always makes me laugh. The SJWs/environmentalists will go from big oil haters to big green haters before you know it because one will just replace the other. Add a green job, lose an oil refinery job. We have clean water, air, healthy children, livable cities, and renewables.....no change. You basically have to believe we live in some sort of crappy world and getting rid of hydrocarbons...which has undoubtedly put us in the awesome position we're in today...will put us in some sort of mythical garden of Eden.....at enormous cost.

In reality, the only way to get to any low footprint sustainability is accurate fundamental science because the fundamental processes aren't known to even allow us to approach real sustainability. And what is really bad IMO is the type of science being excused as real. It's like some sort of participation trophy exercise. Climate science is unrealistic (their assessment) and outcomes highly uncertain (just from the stats) but we need massively empower them because they mean well with their activism and people hate big oil. Wouldn't want to hurt their feelings. Bad science just begets...more bad science and that ain't a good thing.

 

[TWDeac]

That was actually Bush's original policy but it quickly turned into a "he's a witch" hunt because he didn't believe 100% in the climate models.

No one is saying to close their eyes or ears, we just don't need to go down this draconian pathway to solve a problem we don't even know is real on just about every level. You are willingly buying into a theory that is fundamentally unrealistic and highly uncertain. Why? You are citing problems like massive disruptions to coastal living and massive biodiversity collapses that have no real basis, it's just more conjecture on top of all the others. Why?

And some of these so called solutions might be making things worse BECAUSE we don't understand the science. Years ago on here I predicted that the focus would turn to water....the real driver.....that's when we'd know the CO2 theory was in collapse. That's slowly starting to happen because it's all about the ocean/atmosphere coupling and if this recent spike in temps reverses post strong El Nino/Blob....that link will just be reinforced and then we'll actually start to question the greenhouse theory itself (finally).

Burning hydrocarbons releases MORE water than CO2 so IMO the activists will turn to that as they move away from CO2 because they can still be big oil haters. The CO2 crowd ignores the increase in water because they assume the water cycle is constant and it will just precipitate back out (which we don't know). The problem is, the smaller the chain length, the more water is formed. If the problem really is water evaporation/heat transfer in the lower atmosphere, then moving to natural gas and H2......both considered cleaner in today's carbon-centric scary world.....would both be worse. In fact the more life on earth, the worse we'd be because everything emits water. We could stop singling out cows!

So are global ocean levels not rising?

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

 

[knowell]

So are global ocean levels not rising?

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

A little bit, but don't you think that if this were a real problem that real estate prices on coastal lands would be in free fall as opposed to rising.

Who wants to by super expensive land that is about to be under water?

 

[WFFaithful]

A little bit, but don't you think that if this were a real problem that real estate prices on coastal lands would be in free fall as opposed to rising.

Who wants to by super expensive land that is about to be under water?

Trump supporters

 

[birdman]

A little bit, but don't you think that if this were a real problem that real estate prices on coastal lands would be in free fall as opposed to rising.

Who wants to by super expensive land that is about to be under water?

Yep, I have never seen the real estate market decoupled from reality. Never.

 

[birdman]

That was actually Bush's original policy but it quickly turned into a "he's a witch" hunt because he didn't believe 100% in the climate models.

No one is saying to close their eyes or ears, we just don't need to go down this draconian pathway to solve a problem we don't even know is real on just about every level. You are willingly buying into a theory that is fundamentally unrealistic and highly uncertain. Why? You are citing problems like massive disruptions to coastal living and massive biodiversity collapses that have no real basis, it's just more conjecture on top of all the others. Why?

And some of these so called solutions might be making things worse BECAUSE we don't understand the science. Years ago on here I predicted that the focus would turn to water....the real driver.....that's when we'd know the CO2 theory was in collapse. That's slowly starting to happen because it's all about the ocean/atmosphere coupling and if this recent spike in temps reverses post strong El Nino/Blob....that link will just be reinforced and then we'll actually start to question the greenhouse theory itself (finally).

Burning hydrocarbons releases MORE water than CO2 so IMO the activists will turn to that as they move away from CO2 because they can still be big oil haters. The CO2 crowd ignores the increase in water because they assume the water cycle is constant and it will just precipitate back out (which we don't know). The problem is, the smaller the chain length, the more water is formed. If the problem really is water evaporation/heat transfer in the lower atmosphere, then moving to natural gas and H2......both considered cleaner in today's carbon-centric scary world.....would both be worse. In fact the more life on earth, the worse we'd be because everything emits water. We could stop singling out cows!

I am not bugging one fucking milimeter on the reality of a biodiversity crisis. It is real and it will undoubtedly be a massive problem for humanity. It's been an interesting conversation up to that point.

 

[TWDeac]

I am not bugging one fucking milimeter on the reality of a biodiversity crisis. It is real and it will undoubtedly be a massive problem for humanity. It's been an interesting conversation up to that point.

We are experiencing a mass extinction the likes of which we haven't seen since the Permian-Triassic Extinction. Shit is real.