The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Says the guy who disparages the Electric Universe modeling.

Solar forcing, earthquake prediction, any rational discussion, ect.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

I read that as 'models shall fail', is that what you meant?

Says the guy who disparages the Electric Universe modeling.

I chose my language as precisely as I knew how.Since there are a dozen or so models,each with different outcomes and probabilities,I'm unsure that 'fail' is even linguistically appropriate in association with them.Observed data will turn out to be whatever is observed,and then climatologists can examine the 'fit'. Like with COVID-19.If statistical rules are established,all investigators will achieve identical results,given the same source data.
Electric Universe is undeserving of my attention.I regret the time I've wasted there already.The solution for me is to avoid it.

[freebeard]

Since there are a dozen or so models,each with different outcomes and probabilities,I'm unsure that 'fail' is even linguistically appropriate in association with them.Observed data will turn out to be whatever is observed,and then climatologists can examine the 'fit'.

There is one model that you reject. Vehemently.

[redpoint5]

As Scott Adams points out, complex models are pretty much always wrong. Put in more than a couple of variables, and the thing has too many assumptions to forecast with anything resembling precision. Look at Coronavirus modeling. They are all "wrong".

That said, I expect trends to move in the direction predicted. What isn't clear to me is how exactly things will be made worse or better as things warm.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Solar forcing, earthquake prediction, any rational discussion, ect.

So here we go again! Beat that solar forcing drum and see where it gets you.And of course,the volcanologists,who routinely publish on earthquake prediction,certainly you wouldn't want the read any of their research.Which overlooks the question: WTF does earthquakes possibly have to do with climate change?
Rational? Never have you 'spoken' in the first-person.You hide behind links to pseudo-science,the credibility of which you wouldn't be able to defend,as that would imply that you'd already mastered the 'real' science,which is clearly not the case;as it would have told on itself.Which brings me exactly back to the observation by Donald Rumsfeld that,you don't know what you don't know.And I can 'talk' until I'm blue in the face and it will never make any difference,which hardly rates as a rational discussion.You're completely out of your depth.
I have theories which might explain your 'religion',confirmation bias,and intellectual dishonesty in the way of cherry-picking science to serve you when convenient,then dismissing the rest wholesale when it doesn't fit the agenda of your tribe.Darkly fascinating.Extremely dangerous.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

As Scott Adams points out, complex models are pretty much always wrong. Put in more than a couple of variables, and the thing has too many assumptions to forecast with anything resembling precision. Look at Coronavirus modeling. They are all "wrong".

That said, I expect trends to move in the direction predicted. What isn't clear to me is how exactly things will be made worse or better as things warm.

Nothing will ever be clear unless you invest time in the study of the unfiltered science.You keep hiding under the skirt of some third party,as if they knew what was going on.

[aerohead]

I attempted to link this article.I didn't work out.
'Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right'
httpsi//www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/202001
As far as NASA is concerned,observations are matching well with numerical model predictions.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

There is one model that you reject. Vehemently.

So we miss an entire step by your not specifying this one model,and I piss away more of my time waiting,if I'm to respect your fragmented comment with a reply.
If you ran a corporation it'd be headed for bankruptcy protection.In the 'information' age.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by aerohead

Nothing will ever be clear unless you invest time in the study of the unfiltered science.You keep hiding under the skirt of some third party,as if they knew what was going on.

The topic isn't interesting or important enough to me to invest large amounts of time. That said, I'm not hiding under anything, especially a 3rd party. Which party would that be?

If any of my comments are most consistent, it would be the one saying we collectively don't have enough information and enough intelligence to interpret that information to know how "good" and how "bad" things will be. predicting seas will rise between 12" and 24" (made that up) in the next 100 years isn't a declaration of the goodness or badness of anything. Life expectancy will drop by x amount over y time is a declaration of the badness of something, and yet I don't see that model presented. If people aren't modeling that, then they either aren't taking the "problem" seriously, or they are ignorant (my assumption).

The reiteration of "science knows everything, and you don't know science" is tiring. Science knows as close to nothing as one can come without actually knowing nothing, and I am skeptical of the implications of that tiny amount.

[freebeard]

And of course,the volcanologists,who routinely publish on earthquake prediction,certainly you wouldn't want the read any of their research.Which overlooks the question: WTF does earthquakes possibly have to do with climate change?

It's all one thing we tease apart to understand.

I guess Dunning-Krueger cuts both ways. You wouldn't want to look at Eric P. Dollard - Official Homepage - The only man who has replicated Tesla's wireless transmission technology., would you?.

reject

Spare me.