climate change times are a changin'

[Tiggsy]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

If its a good model, shouldn't it work well from any starting point?

There you have it!

It doesn't work because the climate/sun/whatever else they can think of is not following the historical models since trends of something relatively unpredictable over the long term .

 

[unofan]

If its a good model, shouldn't it work well from any starting point?

In the long run, sure. I would fully expect the more data points that arrive, the more the models and the observations will converge.

I go back to the analogy to the stock market. By this point in time, even the great depression's effects show up as a mere blip on a graph that stretches to present day. But if you were still in the 1950's, you could greatly skew things dependent on what you picked for your base year(s).

By the same token though, perfectly valid market forecasting models could be shown to be either wildly astray or deadly accurate if you limit how far back you go and depending on how you define the base year. Using 2001 vs 2002, for instance.

 

[GrinCDXX]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

I'm shocked the sun is being unpredictable!!! Next thing you know, the Earth won't be predictable either.

Not sure what your point is here--I'm guessing you're probably not either.

Of course me stating my opinion is based on feelings. More specifically it is based on MY feelings. I know, shocking again. I'm so sorry I haven't performed my own studies to illustrate my point, but I'm pretty sure you haven't either. If you are expecting me to research and post supporting studies of my personal opinion, keep waiting. I have better things to do and don't have enough interest to undertake that.

You don't need to perform your own science, but your opinions on the matter should at least be based on someone else's science. Your feelings are 100% irrelevant to identifying the truth regarding climate change, full stop. Opinions based on your feelings should be disregarded out of hand. Sorry.

 

[unofan]

Selecting data that illustrates your point better than other sources? Wow, the left NEVER does that. And of course getting in a predictable Fox News shot.

Nice strawman you built yourself. We're not talking about what the left does or doesn't skew, we're talking about this particularly skewed graph. Which apparently you don't care if it's skewed because it supports your position and personal beliefs.

And that wasn't a shot at fox news, it was a shot at the graph being so ridiculous that even Fox news won't use it. Do try to keep up.

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

Not sure what your point is here--I'm guessing you're probably not either.



You don't need to perform your own science, but your opinions on the matter should at least be based on someone else's science. Your feelings are 100% irrelevant to identifying the truth regarding climate change, full stop. Opinions based on your feelings should be disregarded out of hand. Sorry.

Isn't that half the problem? A lot of this is all opinions based on everyone's feelings? How many people have deeply researched the science of this? How can you look at the climate models and accept them as fact when they are so far off on the last 30 years? How can you simply change the narrative to climate change from global warming simply because you've been wrong about warming the last 8 years?

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

Nice strawman you built yourself. We're not talking about what the left does or doesn't skew, we're talking about this particularly skewed graph. Which apparently you don't care if it's skewed because it supports your position and personal beliefs.

And that wasn't a shot at fox news, it was a shot at the graph being so ridiculous that even Fox news won't use it. Do try to keep up.

Does it make you feel better that I found a reference on Fox News?
http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/02/12/report-95-percent-global-warming-models-are-wrong

 

[unofan]

Does it make you feel better that I found a reference on Fox News?
http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/02/12/report-95-percent-global-warming-models-are-wrong

Fox news nation is not fox news. It's a blogging portal.

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

Fox news nation is not fox news. It's a blogging portal.

details, details...

 

[Tiggsy]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

Not sure what your point is here--I'm guessing you're probably not either.



You don't need to perform your own science, but your opinions on the matter should at least be based on someone else's science. Your feelings are 100% irrelevant to identifying the truth regarding climate change, full stop. Opinions based on your feelings should be disregarded out of hand. Sorry.

My point is you are trying to predict something that is very dynamic and unpredictable, so it should not be a surprise when nature is "uncooperative".

You are just as irrelevant as I am if that is your take. So you should only post scientific studies from this point forward because anything else should be dismissed as your own opinion. Following this line of logic, the skeptic science link is simply someone talking about a study they did and not actual data.

I could care less what you think of me and my opinions but to claim that you are superior to me because you can post a link to a website gets pretty arrogant. But I guess that's fitting in this case since most lefties look down on us non-believers.

 

[Tiggsy]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

Nice strawman you built yourself. We're not talking about what the left does or doesn't skew, we're talking about this particularly skewed graph. Which apparently you don't care if it's skewed because it supports your position and personal beliefs.

And that wasn't a shot at fox news, it was a shot at the graph being so ridiculous that even Fox news won't use it. Do try to keep up.

Loving the double standard on full display here. Should we go over to the ACA thread and compare using cherry picked or skewed data to support a point?

How isn't that a shot at Fox News as well? If I said something is so crazy MSNBC wouldn't touch it seems like a shot at the network and the original data. Seems pretty clear to me. I'm keeping up just fine, just try to stay focused here.

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

Loving the double standard on full display here. Should we go over to the ACA thread and compare using cherry picked or skewed data to support a point?

How isn't that a shot at Fox News as well? If I said something is so crazy MSNBC wouldn't touch it seems like a shot at the network and the original data. Seems pretty clear to me. I'm keeping up just fine, just try to stay focused here.

Wouldn't fox news avoiding it give it credence since anything we see on fox news isn't legit anyway? or did I miss something about what lefties think of fox news?

 

[GrinCDXX]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

Isn't that half the problem? A lot of this is all opinions based on everyone's feelings? How many people have deeply researched the science of this? How can you look at the climate models and accept them as fact when they are so far off on the last 30 years? How can you simply change the narrative to climate change from global warming simply because you've been wrong about warming the last 8 years?

First, they are not "so far off" over the last thirty years as has already been pointed out. Second, not being willing to dismiss the models as useless because they've diverged over the short term from observations is not "accepting them as fact". I would rather attempt to understand why that has occurred and judge from there whether it is because of some fundamental flaw. It looks quite likely in this case, it is not. The point of these models is to model the temperature changes that we can expect from changes in our atmosphere--not changes in solar output.

It wasn't the climate scientists who decided that global warming meant "nice, uniform warming at all points on earth over all time intervals", that was a straw man put out there by those who want to bury their head in the sand.

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

It wasn't the climate scientists who decided that global warming meant "nice, uniform warming at all points on earth over all time intervals", that was a straw man put out there by those who want to bury their head in the sand.

That is completely your OPINION which is the whole point of why we on the other side get so annoyed when you just want to ignore us. Saying we have our heads buried in the sand isn't debate, it is simply attempting to shutdown debate by discrediting opposition. This whole "we don't have any time, we need to change everything now or we're doomed" crap is just as ridiculous as claiming that burning all these fossil fuels has no effect of things what so ever.

I personally accept the fact that burning fossil fuels has an effect on things but I certainly don't think its all doom and gloom. I personally dont think we need to be shoving all this change now. I think we should focus on improving the technologies and leaving it to choice for now, and eventually the cheaper choice will be the better choice both financially and environmentally. Until then we shouldn't be shoving wind mills or electric cars or any of that down anyone's throat.

 

[unofan]

Loving the double standard on full display here. Should we go over to the ACA thread and compare using cherry picked or skewed data to support a point?

How isn't that a shot at Fox News as well? If I said something is so crazy MSNBC wouldn't touch it seems like a shot at the network and the original data. Seems pretty clear to me. I'm keeping up just fine, just try to stay focused here.

Doesn't it say something that you have to resort to attacking the ACA rather than refuting the simple point that the posted graph is skewed?

 

[GrinCDXX]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

My point is you are trying to predict something that is very dynamic and unpredictable, so it should not be a surprise when nature is "uncooperative".

It's not a "surprise"--I never said that. The point is that the unforeseen changes in solar output are not a good reason for the models to be discredited--they were never intended to handle short term chaos in outside forcings.

You are just as irrelevant as I am if that is your take. So you should only post scientific studies from this point forward because anything else should be dismissed as your own opinion. Following this line of logic, the skeptic science link is simply someone talking about a study they did and not actual data.

Sorry, no. My opinion is based on actual information and reasoning--and that's not to say that that information and reasoning might not be flawed--that's certainly a possibility. Arguing something like "The models should not be dismissed because of the short term divergence because it coincides with an unforeseen drop in solar output" is not fundamentally the same as saying "We can't cause the earth to warm because it's just so big and powerful." They're not the same thing--the latter is 100% gut feeling--it's useless. It would be like me thinking I should be taken seriously with fluff like "I just feel like it's been warmer the last few years."

I could care less what you think of me and my opinions but to claim that you are superior to me because you can post a link to a website gets pretty arrogant. But I guess that's fitting in this case since most lefties look down on us non-believers.

I didn't claim I'm superior to you (nice try martyr). It's just that in this case, posting a link to a website with actual information and rational arguments is not the same thing as arguing feelings. Ah yes, the "lefty" fall back--I've got a really strange voting record for a lefty.

 

[unofan]

Wouldn't fox news avoiding it give it credence since anything we see on fox news isn't legit anyway? or did I miss something about what lefties think of fox news?

As with all things, there is a spectrum. Fox News may be biased and may have gone to court to preserve its right to lie, but it still has some minimum standards. It, along with other Murdoch media properties, can still provide some information as long as you recognize what you're getting is heavily slanted to the right. It's still several orders of magnitude of legitimacy above Joe's political blog and Jane's science hour newsletter.

If nothing else, it can't go too far or it'd lose all sponsorship. And Murdoch is nothing if not a business man first and foremost.

 

[GrinCDXX]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

That is completely your OPINION which is the whole point of why we on the other side get so annoyed when you just want to ignore us. Saying we have our heads buried in the sand isn't debate, it is simply attempting to shutdown debate by discrediting opposition. This whole "we don't have any time, we need to change everything now or we're doomed" crap is just as ridiculous as claiming that burning all these fossil fuels has no effect of things what so ever.

The thing is though, I didn't say anyone who disagrees has their head buried in the sand. What I suggested was that is the case for people who put out the straw man that global warming had been discredited because the term wasn't literally true for all points over all time intervals.

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

The thing is though, I didn't say anyone who disagrees has their head buried in the sand. What I suggested was that is the case for people who put out the straw man that global warming had been discredited because the term wasn't literally true for all points over all time intervals.

I see you ignored the more important point of my post...

 

[GrinCDXX]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

I see you ignored the more important point of my post...

And that would be...

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

And that would be...

The part of my previous post that you didn't quote.