global warming models proven "huge"-ly wrong

Post Reply New Topic

Then I don't really understand the problem. Pollution is bad. We are polluting. Hence, we should go towards stopping pollution. As far as the carbon credit madness goes, you have a point there. I was unaware of the relationship between camels and carbon credits, but I do kind of get the point (also, I've heard that camels are a pest in Australia, so the idea in itself isn't bad). It's not my preferred way of handling things and I am aware of the scams that are going on with it, but it's (in my opinion) better than nothing. I'm more of a fan of green tech subsidies, though.

QFT

Any number of scientific fields use modeling. As an undergrad in Astrophysics, I used modeling to understand certain aspects of supernova. Modeling is a tested method of scientific discovery. The recent data on the search for the Higgs boson is a great example of models at work. Climate models operate under the same methodology. I don't see non-scientists complaining that the Higgs boson models are wrong, but somehow these same non-scientists feel qualified to disavow climate models. They feel as though their opinion should hold equal privilege with scientific data. Well that's plain bollocks.

Models with too many adjustable parameters are soft and squooshy. What you want is a theory that cannot be fiddled or snockered. It is either right or it is wrong. Einstein's General Theory is in that category. There is very little fiddling that can be done. Einstein himself said adding the cosmic stability factor was his biggest blunder.

ruveyn

Even in physics, people disagree over the correct model. And even the correct model makes predictions difficult: you know that Schrödinger's cat is half dead and half alive and that if you open the box you will find out which, but you cannot predict what he is. And that's at a minute level. The earth's climate is a huge, chaotic system. Chaotic systems are, sadly, highly vulnerable to specific inputs, as small perturbations can lead to huge differences in results. We can model an atom, and we can even model the weather. But modeling something is not tantamount to being able to perfectly predict something.

Scientific theories make quantitative testable predictions. Anything else ain't science. Quantum theory predicts the odds. As an ensemble theory it has passed empirical tests and has not been empirically falsified.

ruveyn

Yes, quantum theory predicts the odds. But the weather is a complex system. Basically, if you have a complex system, you do not wind up with simple and easily testable laws. You cannot easily do weather experiments because we only have one Earth. You might be able to reproduce them in the lab, but then we presuppose a model and then wish to test it, which is already problematic, and we can't even see if we're right. Even if we could somehow reproduce the Earth in a laboratory environment, you're still stuck with a complex system: you do not know what happens if you move from small-scale Earth to large-scale Earth.

Chaos theory argues that even massively complex systems are reliant on simple laws. That doesn't mean that these laws can be easily tested, or that predictions can come out of it. For example, we can use a double pendulum (Link). Its behaviour is extremely sensitive to the initial impulse given to it, and for some impulses, it behaves chaotically. As the article states, "[...] the pendulum can flip, but it is a complex question to determine when it will flip."

The weather is such a system. Add to that that we can not easily experiment with the weather and it becomes difficult to build hard scientific models of the weather. Climate change is even more difficult. The only way to know if the model is correct is to sit and wait and see what happens, and while I'm sure that some of the scientists among us would be happy with being right, I'm sure most of us would be unhappy with drowning.

I presume you're talking about the cosmological constant? Which, it turns out, is exactly what the model needed. Einstein was in fact wrong about being wrong. He was correct all along.

But again I assert that the models that describe and explain particles like the Higgs boson are fairly complex, with many adjustable parameters. I don't see any non-scientists trying to tear that model apart via opinion.

okay, as for what you quoted, how is one tin foil hat territory and the other not? they're both conspiracy theories.

second off, if these people can't even correctly predict the weather that has happened, which they haven't, they've been totally dead wrong for the past decade or so, then how is it that they can predict the climate patterns many many years from now?


and perhaps i shouldn't have said bankers, but there is a lot of money to be made by various individuals off this carbon scam. al gore is one of those people. the bankers are also in position to make money off all the new tech people would buy.

Actually not. Einstein was after a steady state universe. He postulated that cosmological factor to produce what he wanted. Hubble later showed him that the Universe was expanding which is exactly what Einstein did not believe. He put in the cosmological constant to cook the books. In that he was mistaken. Only later on, long after Einstein died did it turn out that the cosmological constant (so-called) was useful.

His original field equations implied that the universe was either expanding or contracting. Einstein lost his nerve and let his philosophical convictions override the mathematics of his theory as originally stated.

ruveyn

But while you can't do a supernova in a lab, you can look at multiple observations of supernovae and compare it to your model.

You can test it and see if it works.

What do climate scientists have to work with? Not very many decades of good data, about a century of decent data, and beyond that they can get a good estimate of global parameters. Human technology hasn't been in the mix for very long, and climate changes are usually relatively lengthy things.

They have only crappy data for the timescale they're studying, and only one data point (the earth). On top of that, they can only guess what impact humans have.

I'd put a lot more faith in your models than in theirs.


I know almost nothing about the Higgs boson, but the normal method of particle physics is to guess what particles are going to be like, then smash things together at high speeds and see if they can make one.

Their guesses would be better than mine, but I would still have more confidence in their data than in their guesses. If they look at a Higgs boson and say 'look we were right', then I have no reason to doubt them. If they say, 'we think a Higgs boson will look like this, but we haven't looked at one', it isn't unreasonable to doubt that.

And this thinking has been the large success of the oil industry. No, both issues are not conspiracy theories (the banker thing would have been). I was studying and researching climate back in the 90's, before Al Gore went and f*cked everything up. Al Gore is *not* a scientist. He does not speak for the scientific community. He took an issue and spun it towards his own views. There is a solid argument that he did it for political and financial gain, or he may have been sincere in his quest. Either way, you can count on any opposition to name him out as justification for discrediting all climate research, even though he never participated in said research and even though most scientists completely disagree with his predictions.

Scientists are not politicians. They have no gain either way here. You cannot conflate public policy with scientific research. These are independent issues.

As for the oil companies trying to discredit climate researchers in order to protect their assets from a movement away from oil-based energy - well that's just business 101. These companies exist solely for profit. Their primary function is to maximize those profits. They are contractually obligated to do so with respect to their shareholders. There's no conspiracy here at all. It's sh*tty, but expected behavior. Go back to the OP for an example. This story is brought to you by The Heartland Institute. Please go ahead and look into this organization for yourself. And of course, Al Gore is mentioned in the article.

Hoax? Douchebag. Your accusation that thousands of scientists are deliberate lyers completely discredits you as a right-wing partisan hack. Your brain has been invaded by the noxious popular meme of climate change denial.

*sigh*
I get so fricking tired of this one. I don't know if I should even bother explaining since I'm not sure you have the mental capacity to understand.

One does not have to accurately predict what the weather will be on any given day to predict a long term climate trend. Climate is an example of a chaotic attractor. While the weather at any given time and location fluctuates chaotically, fluctuations are statistically bounded by the attractor. In other words, the mean state which varies as a long-term trend is far more predicable than short term fluctuations. This is because short term weather fluctuations are largely a matter of dynamical processes that conserve energy. Meanwhile, long term fluctuations are a function of the overall energy budget which is mostly due to radiative processes which DO NOT conserve energy. In more simple terms if "energy in" > "energy out" you have warming, and if it's the other way you have cooling. How the energy is stirred around within the atmosphere is much less relevant.

Here's a more concrete example. Say you wrote a computer model to simulate a boiling pan of water. The model doesn't have to accurately predict the time and location of each individual vapor bubble that forms in the pan or each individual turbulent motion of the water to predict that X amount of water will boil off in a given amount of time. That's because the X amount of water that boils off is governed by the net energy balance of the system. The positions and timings of individual vapor bubbles and chaotic convective currents do not effect the net energy balance of the system to any large degree.

B-b-b-but the planet has always gone through warming and cooling cycles, obviously thousands of scientists who have spent years studying it would overlook such simple factors and fail to take them into account! Never mind that we might be adding insult to injury when it comes to these cycles!

Actually, it wouldn't surprise me if the scientists deliberately didn't take the fact the planet has gone through warming and cooling cycles.

Supposedly scientists are always open to new ideas and data and ask for proof when they are introduced. Yet the whole climate issue seems dominated by emotion rather than reason. If I don't believe global warming or climate change or "man-made" change is altogether correct as presented I become a "denier" not a "skeptic" . Nobody calls me a "flying-saucer denier" or a "Ghost denier" when I express my position. So why would I "deny" anything. Well, if a "flat-earther" or a moon-landing skeptic posts his thoughts, any number of scientists will point out hard facts showing that persons error. We can prove the earth is not flat and we can prove that men went to the moon. When climate change is questioned a common retort is "hundreds (thousands?) of learned savants all agree that change is real, you are just a stupid layman, who are you to question these people?" That isn't proof! A majority of learned men have often believed a wrong hypothesis. 150 years ago, most astronomers were certain that lunar craters were volcanic in origin and many did not believe in the existence of meteors.

Next we have the dismissal of data that doesn't agree with the preferred theory. Applying such techniques as the tree ring analysis used to determine ancient climates to modern periods where actual data was recorded shows that the technique is not always correct. Now maybe this anomaly has been explained but I've only ever seen remarks like "nonsense" and "rubbish" with no further discussion. If I say "the earth is hollow" an astronomer or geologist can easily explain to me why I am wrong. Someone answering me by saying I'm just stupid wouldn't carry much weight.

And last, the evidence seems to suggest that human contribution to the situation must be minimal or even negligible. Further, the remedies we are pursuing cannot possible offer a meaningful change. Or at least so say some scientists who seem to know what they are talking about. Where is the actual proof that these people are wrong. Saying that lots of important people have voted on the issue and decided these questions are not worth considering is not a valid scientific approach to the question.

Climate issues seem to carry an almost religious fervor and the answers seem politically motivated. It's like having congress vote on the age of the universe.