45Doll 5,877 Posted July 16, 2019 Over the lifespan of the earth we all know that earth's climate has changed. The current climate change theory (and it is a theory, not proven science) is driven entirely by computer modeling as it tries to hold human activity responsible for some of the change. Computer modeling depends on mathematics and Boolean algebra. But these two facts do not in and of themselves prove climate change modeling to be fact. It's still just a theory. To get some insight into this, read A Sophomoric Look At Climate Change. Here's a hint of what's to come: "All you need is the same number of equations as you have variables." to derive an answer. This article provides great insight into the current 'thinking' on this topic. Or lack of it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
10X 3,296 Posted July 16, 2019 21 minutes ago, 45Doll said: This article provides great insight into the current 'thinking' on this topic. Or lack of it. The article is written as a parable, not as a factual account, and the problem of underdetermined or overdetermined systems of equations has been understood for centuries--it wouldn't surprise anyone doing mathematical modeling. One can and should challenge the assumptions going into a model, but it's wrong to imply that requiring the same number of equations and variables is somehow politicizing how the math works. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
45Doll 5,877 Posted July 16, 2019 I have emailed the author and asked if he's telling us a parable, or whether this was his nephew's actual classroom experience. And yes, mathematics and modeling can't be politicized. But the conclusions drawn from models (correct or incorrect) certainly can. And have been. In the last week AOC's Chief Of Staff admitted that the whole Green New Deal was really just a ploy to gain control of the whole U.S. economy. I suppose I inherently thought 'which of all the possible variables listed could be eliminated from participation in the model', and the obvious logical answer is none of them. They're all part of planet earth. So then we leave mathematics and Boolean algebra behind and begin to make judgement calls about what counts and what doesn't, and for how much. Subject to human values, conduct and opinion. Then we build our model, run it, and draw our conclusions. Still just a theory. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
10X 3,296 Posted July 16, 2019 11 minutes ago, 45Doll said: I suppose I inherently thought 'which of all the possible variables listed could be eliminated from participation in the model', and the obvious logical answer is none of them. They're all part of planet earth. True, but creating a model of all but the simplest system requires simplifying assumptions. Modeling the whole friggin' planet requires a lot of simplifying assumptions (all of which must be scrutinized and challenged, of course, because there is potential to politicize the model here), but if the options are to give up because it's impossible, or do the best you can and document all assumptions made so that they can be scrutinized, then it makes sense to do the best you can. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sniper 6,372 Posted July 16, 2019 The problem I see with the current modeling is, that most models are written with a end point in mind. Most have a agenda. So the results of the model, number one, depend on the inputs and assumptions to start with, then the results are pre-planned in the design of the model. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
45Doll 5,877 Posted July 17, 2019 OK, I heard back from the author and the article is a fiction. I also heard back from the AT Editor, who was 'chagrined' that he didn't know it was fiction when he posted it. The AT editor has now labeled the story as Satire. I however have no doubt that similar scenarios can and do occur on U.S. college campuses, and not just in the climate change arena. My main takeaway of the 'story' was that with the enormous number of unpredictable variables that interact and change independently over time, any model drawing conclusions demanding a wholesale restructuring of our energy production (and only OUR energy production) and economy are farcical at best, and rife with political motivation. If the current cadre of climate change alarmists followed the 10X suggestion of: 22 hours ago, 10X said: do the best you can and document all assumptions made so that they can be scrutinized, ... I'd be a lot more inclined to take them seriously. That is not the methodology being followed today. Not to mention a media run by the likes of Chuck Todd: “We’re not going to give time to climate deniers. The science is settled even if political opinion is not. We’re not going to debate climate change, the existence of it. The Earth is getting hotter and human activity is a major cause. Period.” Meet The Press, 12/30/2018 And there in a nutshell is the progressive model. Don't annoy me with other facts. Sit down and shut up. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
njJoniGuy 2,131 Posted July 17, 2019 4 minutes ago, 45Doll said: ...“We’re not going to give time to climate deniers. The science is settled even if political opinion is not. We’re not going to debate climate change, the existence of it. The Earth is getting hotter and human activity is a major cause. Period.” Meet The Press, 12/30/2018 And there in a nutshell is the progressive model. Don't annoy me with other facts. Sit down and shut up. Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao could not have collectively (pun intended) said it any better. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kevin125 4,772 Posted July 18, 2019 On 7/16/2019 at 10:46 AM, Sniper said: The problem I see with the current modeling is, that most models are written with a end point in mind. Most have a agenda. So the results of the model, number one, depend on the inputs and assumptions to start with, then the results are pre-planned in the design of the model. Yup. Models try to repetitively mimic unpredictable processes. Too often with too little data. Like when some dishonest scientist tries to project 100, 50, or even 20 year temperatures based on 75 or so years of temperature and other data. In a system that spans millions of years. And their models are manipulated by their unsubstantiated assumptions. Even Deep Learning AI, the supposed holy grail of model makers, is barely considered reliable for anything more than rough estimates of likely trends for very short term projections. And beyond all of that....when they change the raw data to move the results of their models, something that is a documented fact for these climate BS artists, it turns their ‘science’ .....into dog s%%t. Which is as it should be. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
raz-0 1,259 Posted July 18, 2019 16 hours ago, Kevin125 said: Even Deep Learning AI, the supposed holy grail of model makers, is barely considered reliable for anything more than rough estimates of likely trends for very short term projections. I'm not going to get into the details of what is what RE: global warming, but I can say that I don't like the way their simulations are vetted in general. Going to your AI reference, you feed the damn things a learning data set to get an arbitrary rule out of them for determining if something is X. You then feed it a new data set and see how right it is. If it is below a certain threshold, you throw it away as garbage. The warming models need way more refinement then they get and are being held to a pretty low standard for most of them. Which irks me. Anthropogenic or not, unprecedented or not, in general, it looks like things are getting hotter, and we will have to survive it. It'd be nice if we didn't have what boils down to conjecture on what those effects might be that we have to survive. Engaging in a circle jerk where everyone agrees their models that have been inaccurate in determining the effects is good enough doesn't help with that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sniper 6,372 Posted July 18, 2019 1 hour ago, raz-0 said: Anthropogenic or not, unprecedented or not, in general, it looks like things are getting hotter, and we will have to survive it. In reality, the claimed 1.5 degree rise over 130 years is a nothing burger... There are people who live year round at the Arctic Circle and year round at the Equator..... people will adapt.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zeke 5,504 Posted July 18, 2019 Pre k-t you have levels at 1900 ppm vs currently of 300 ish ppm. Idk seems like cyclical to me Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sniper 6,372 Posted July 18, 2019 52 minutes ago, Zeke said: Pre k-t you have levels at 1900 ppm vs currently of 300 ish ppm. Idk seems like cyclical to me Hence the name, climate CHANGE.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
45Doll 5,877 Posted July 20, 2019 With the current heat wave and occasional voltage dips it's time to consider The Silence Of The Wind Turbines. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites