'Al Gore's hockey stick is correct

[freebeard]

[shrug]

""I have had it with these monkey-fighting snakes on this Monday to Friday plane."" Samuel L. Jackson

[oil pan 4]

That move is more plausible than alarmist global warming.

[redpoint5]

LOL, I don't know how your mind went there, but it was funny.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Paging aerohead:

If I understand this correctly, Mann underestimated the problem.

[The last two minutes is advertising]

Our local universities have open TED Talks and community discussions. The organizers invite professors of climate and earth sciences to attend to form a panel to answer questions.

My question is always "Which climate model is the most accurate"? This usually sparks good discussion among the panel members.

This can be summarized by this link to a NASA paper via JPL.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/s...524e30f3c80493

Back checking the models with the best data sets ( global temperatures taken since 1970 via satellites ) shows over a dozen of them are accurate. This is good science.

However, asking the question "do these models take into account all inputs to the climate biosphere whether they be human or natural carbon cycle responses"?

Of course, the models do not take them all into account. They are simply models.

The other question of, "is Mann's graphical use of 200 year historical climate cells proper"? They agree it is. I thus counter with the statement , "so it is ok to use a 50 year time cell in testing the veracity of the climate models"?

They become strangely uncomfortable with this but counter with "we believe with great certainty that the models will be supported as we move forward".

We Believe.

The meetings usually devolve into "action now"! What do we need to do?

I offer the solution that nuclear power can solve all our problems and mitigate or eliminate the "existential threat to humanity".

A lot of yelling about how "bad" nuclear power is usually follows.

I am certain this has nothing to do with science and saving humanity.

Just so you know, I believe in human caused climate change. Where I differ with the popular movement is the degree of climate interference we as humans have and what we should do about it.

[freebeard]

Good analysis. I also agree humans are causing change; I just think it is a premonitory hedge against the [fear of] Ice Age in our collective memory.

[redpoint5]

A perfect model of anything would be an exact replica. By definition, a model, map, or other abstraction of a thing is less precise than the thing itself. The whole point is to throw out as many unnecessary variables as possible to deliver useful information in a comprehensible way to facilitate decision making.

All modeling will therefore be "wrong", but that doesn't mean they aren't useful.

[RedDevil]

The idea of a model is not to take all data into account. Instead, the model should predict what the data would look like, and measurements should statistically approach these values when the sample window size grows if the model is correct, and not if it is not.

The golden rule is that you cannot prove a model correct by verifying it against the data used to calibrate the model (obviously). So the only way to do that is to see how it does against data outside of that scope.

Almost all models predicted a rise in global temperatures and sea level. And sure enough, year over year we see those rise. So they seem to approach reality fairly good.

Now if you believe it is all a hoax, there is a simple solution. Devise a climate model that does align with the data we know but for the future trends to whatever you believe is going to happen, like the infamous upcoming ice age. Then wait and see if the model outperforms the other models that do predict further heating.

As for the ice age, I see no signs at all of it happening. If anything the Earth's temperature rise is accelerating.
But if there will be an ice age after all, the people to endure that will forever curse us for burning the fossil fuel now that they could have used to avert it then. Whether it comes or not, our excessive burning of fossil fuel remains a burden on generations to come.

[redpoint5]

I mean, we're still coming out of the current ice age. I believe the definition of ice age is polar ice caps; a condition which Earth has rarely had in geologic history. That's not an argument for rapid warming, clearly.

[freebeard]

I believe the definition of ice age is polar ice caps; a condition which Earth has rarely had in geologic history.

Pleez review the video at Permalink #7; wherein, at youtu.be/CqtZdnpfgIc?t=228 the Medieval Warm Period is discussed.

IIRC Ice Ages constitute 90% of Earth's [recent (post-fireball)] history.

[oil pan 4]

The idea of the model is to perpetuate a fraud to scam people.