Please provide some references for this, from the climate classes I had in college I was taught that climate changes are slow i.e. on a scale of thousands or tens of thousands of years.What is relevant from these past climate changes from natural causes is that beyond a certain tipping point change can be extremely rapid and large.
Unsure. The process does not have to be consistent, but if the process variances are known, then the data can accurately be adjusted.So global sea surface temperatures are measured with thermometers in a process consistent for 150 years?
That's the part which makes me highly uncomfortable, especially because there's no way that the adjustments can be accurately validated. I admit suffering from lab scientist syndrome.Unsure. The process does not have to be consistent, but if the process variances are known, then the data can accurately be adjusted.
It's not my data so I have neither means nor intention of defending it. I think the attitudes of certainty on various side of the issue are misplaced.As always in science: do you have any evidence that there has been a systematic trend in the potential inaccuracy that you are now postulating and that such a trend is large enough to negate the conclusion?
SIY, just make up your own model. Anything can be done with the correct model. Oh and to answer the question of the topic, A large country can't go to a green economy, they can go greener than what they are, but not a full on green economy. If they did that they will look like Venezuela........It's not my data so I have neither means nor intention of defending it. I think the attitudes of certainty on various side of the issue are misplaced.
I got into an interesting disagreement with one of our young profs (a very smart guy) who specializes in modeling and machine learning. I started off by annoying him with my standard of Von Neumann's Elephant. On the other hand, his strong feeling is that with modeling, we don't have to do experiments, or at least a whole lot fewer experiment. He was taken aback by my attitude that modeling is only as good as the experimental results behind it- it can be used to show that it's consistent with existing results, and passing that test, used to make predictions which need to be validated experimentally. It's only good until its first failure, and continually patching it up with parameter adjustment turns it into a game rather than a valid physical model.SIY, just make up your own model. Anything can be done with the correct model. Oh and to answer the question of the topic, A large country can't go to a green economy, they can go greener than what they are, but not a full on green economy. If they did that they will look like Venezuela........
SIY, Thank you for trying to educate the young guy on models and how they should work. Constantly patching an often wrong model in itself says something. When someone tries to cling to a model that doesn't work much shows the model needs a LOT of work or a new model needs to be made. OMG! While typing this I just realized how it seems as if I was talking about snake oil!!I got into an interesting disagreement with one of our young profs (a very smart guy) who specializes in modeling and machine learning. I started off by annoying him with my standard of Von Neumann's Elephant. On the other hand, his strong feeling is that with modeling, we don't have to do experiments, or at least a whole lot fewer experiment. He was taken aback by my attitude that modeling is only as good as the experimental results behind it- it can be used to show that it's consistent with existing results, and passing that test, used to make predictions which need to be validated experimentally. It's only good until its first failure, and continually patching it up with parameter adjustment turns it into a game rather than a valid physical model.
We have an older guy (emeritus professor and former Engineering dean) here who has spent decades doing molecular dynamics, has gotten some amazing results, and he seemed to agree with me. So while I cop to lab scientist syndrome, it may be a function of age as well.![]()
I wonder what model they were using for the predictions in the "An Inconvenient Truth" movie? Outside of there being over 400 ppm C02 in Hawaii I believe every prediction made in that movie is incorrect.I'm more convinced by the shrinking glaciers that at a minimum things are warmer. Plus things like record high and low temps being skewed in the direction of warmer. Maybe less so about the rather precise modeling predictions.
I'm more concerned that the data points are derived (necessarily) using different measurement methods with different error bars and different biases. When I see a chart like this (from the article linked a few posts back), I have to admit that it gets me headscratching. I'm sure one of our experts here can explain why measurements in the 1880s and measurements in 2020 can be consistently used in the same dataset.
![]()
Is a "scientific consensus" of any value without scientific facts? Especially since a scientist can't get a government grant unless they tow the consensus "party line"?And that is the scientific consensus.
I agree with you. The model for global warming has been wrong for over what 30 years now? Gore and the gang said Florida would be under water 20 years ago. We have passed the tipping point every few years yet there are no massive changes as predicted. There is climate change, but that has been going on forever. Long term cooling, long term warming and on and on. Then the plans for us to "fix" the global weather because we don't ;like where it is heading is usually not scientifically sound. Mankind just does not have the ability to do what they want to do. Maybe in 100 years things will change. Who knows?I'm more convinced by the shrinking glaciers that at a minimum things are warmer. Plus things like record high and low temps being skewed in the direction of warmer. Maybe less so about the rather precise modeling predictions.
I think that is going too far. As for what Gore said etc. that is politics. I don't think reputable climate scientists were saying Florida is underwater in 20 years. I also don't think the scientists in the field have been claiming we have reached tipping points. Only about the fact we are moving toward them and things might be much worse if that happens.I agree with you. The model for global warming has been wrong for over what 30 years now? Gore and the gang said Florida would be under water 20 years ago. We have passed the tipping point every few years yet there are no massive changes as predicted. There is climate change, but that has been going on forever. Long term cooling, long term warming and on and on. Then the plans for us to "fix" the global weather because we don't ;like where it is heading is usually not scientifically sound. Mankind just does not have the ability to do what they want to do. Maybe in 100 years things will change. Who knows?
Such thinking misses the point. There is no long term here. On a long term graph, we're perched on a tiny level blip at the extreme right of the picture, more or less at zero years. We had a freak, stable 10,000 year plateau, and used it to build an entire civilization still and always based on fixed-location farming, by a sedentary population, using negotiated and/or legislated water rights.There is climate change, but that has been going on forever. Long term cooling, long term warming and on and on.
I had a climatology class in college and during that time the news was all about "a new ice age" that was going to wipe out civilization. My professor said something I still remember : "As you go through your life you will hear some people saying it is getting colder and others will say it is getting warmer. While one or the other may be right no one will know until 10,000 years after you are dead". This whole "tipping point" / "hockey stick" thing has no proven science behind it that I have seen (If real science exists please point me to it). Moving toward a more a more environmentally sound economy is certainly a good idea but all the alarmist "We are doomed in 10 years" has no basis in reality and especially no basis in real science and leads to counter productive policies.No doubt roving bands of hardy souls would survive far into the future, but most of everything will be lost, like bankruptcy, at first slowly, and then fast.
It really amazes me as to how much faith people put in complex models (the past predictions of which have not panned out)...I have to assume they don't do any modeling themselves...it really is a cult of scientism....
I don't know how long ago your climate class was, but it is certainly outdated. I am an economic historian, and we collect observations. We mostly do not build complex models, but use linear regressions, and the upward bend and the subsequent upward trend are all too clear. Whether there is a critical tipping point is obviously less clear, and would depend on feedback mechanisms such as the melting of permafrost releasing methane into the atmosphere.I had a climatology class in college and during that time the news was all about "a new ice age" that was going to wipe out civilization. My professor said something I still remember : "As you go through your life you will hear some people saying it is getting colder and others will say it is getting warmer. While one or the other may be right no one will know until 10,000 years after you are dead". This whole "tipping point" / "hockey stick" thing has no proven science behind it that I have seen (If real science exists please point me to it). Moving toward a more a more environmentally sound economy is certainly a good idea but all the alarmist "We are doomed in 10 years" has no basis in reality and especially no basis in real science and leads to counter productive policies.