New Category suggestion. Climate change.

sculptor said:
If an hypothesis is put forth that is untestable, do you think that it has value?
Click to expand...
Yes. At the very least, it's a template in which to enter variables that are testable.
Comparing to the distant past isn't particularly useful, because we have limited and spotty information from the past and because the same conditions are never exactly duplicated. In the case of anthropogenic situations (not only climate change), the conditions have never existed before. So, in this regard all large-scale predictions are untestable. But trends can spotted and dangers foreseen - and, at least in theory, avoided.
 
Here's a simple climate model you can play with:
climatetrends1910-2010.jpg
Question:
according to the trend graph what would be the most likely out come for the following years:

2020
2030
2040
2050

my answer hot and hotter...
 
sculptor said:
Why would you choose to "understand" that?
Click to expand...
The phrase simply means 'do I interpret you correctly?'

I'm asking because your comments appear to be criticizing the data we do have (which is fine), but you haven't said whether you find that data leading to false conclusions, or what your stance is on the issue of climate change.

Don't matter to me; I just wanted to understand the nature of your objections.
 
DaveC426913 said:
The phrase simply means 'do I interpret you correctly?'
Click to expand...

Perhaps, the real question is are we in the anthropocene, and, if so, what exactly does that mean?
Personally, I do not see compelling evidence that "this time is different" ergo, my referencing to paleoclimatology.
 
 
sculptor said:
If a climate model is designed to predict climate changes for various latitudes with a given temperature rise
Click to expand...
It's not. The climate models use the current climate as a starting point and estimate temperature rises (and several other things.) They do NOT take a temperature rise as an input and output other interesting information.

It's like taking a fluid dynamics simulator and asking "let's say I have this vortex in a free flowing fluid. What is the airplane that produced it?" The simulator will not be able to do that. You can, of course, use it to simulate all kinds of airplanes until you get a vortex that looks like that, just as you can play with a climate model to get that temperature rise that you want. But that is effectively using that tool backwards, and I would not expect high fidelity results.

Of course, there are many models you can build - and as I mentioned, you might want to take a whack at that kind of "backwards" model.
How else would you determine if a climate model has any veracity?
Click to expand...
You use it and see if it accurately predicts what happens.
Some of thee models I've perused predict climate change out to 2100--------that is untestable.
Click to expand...
You believe the Earth will not exist in the year 2100?
 
Last edited:
sculptor said:
Perhaps, the real question is are we in the anthropocene, and, if so, what exactly does that mean?
Personally, I do not see compelling evidence that "this time is different" ergo, my referencing to paleoclimatology.
Click to expand...

which scientists work are you refering to.
name and list them.
 
RainbowSingularity said:
which scientists work are you refering to.
name and list them.
Click to expand...

sculptor said:
ok
here's one
Professor Dorthe Dahl-Jensen
Click to expand...

i would have a list of roughly 20 scientists off hand i can roughly tally
along with peer reviewed papers on years of study

so i am expecting you to easily list half that
say.. 10 scientists
5 studys
with links to them and list thier names and their specificity in science

that way it can be a discussion about science, rather than conspiracy theory rhetoric(which appears to be the entire climate deniers content)
 
A)
How else would you determine if a climate model has any veracity?
Click to expand...
You use it and see if it accurately predicts what happens.
Click to expand...
B)
Some of thee models I've perused predict climate change out to 2100--------that is untestable.
Click to expand...
You believe the Earth will not exist in the year 2100?
Click to expand...

A When?
B) Making predictions of expected changes a century from now is untestable now.
Kinda safe prediction----------even if totally insane---the proof will either happen or not happen long after the predictor and watchers are dead.
 
sculptor said:
Dorthe Dahl-Jensen
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorthe_Dahl-Jensen#Current_and_up-coming_projects
Current and up-coming projects
In 2015, a collaborative group of researchers from the U.S., Germany, and Denmark will study Renland, Greenland area for deep ice core drilling.

Another project in early stages is a deep ice core drilling project, also located in Greenland which is expected to shed light on the northeast Greenland ice stream and its contributions to a rise in sea level. This could give details on what to expect for future sea level rise due to ice sheet mass loss in Greenland.
Click to expand...

https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/2104473328_Dorthe_Dahl-Jensen

http://forecastpod.org/index.php/20...-of-ice-core-science-with-dorthe-dahl-jensen/

Dorthe appears ligit.
however.
you will need to point to her publishing of findings that clearly show her saying climate change is a hoax.

fyi i have seen video interviews of the lead prfessor of the US Antarctic ice core study and his comments are fairly easy to understand
 
sculptor said:
B) Making predictions of expected changes a century from now is untestable now.
Kinda safe prediction----------even if totally insane---the proof will either happen or not happen long after the predictor and watchers are dead.
Click to expand...
I get the impression you think that making predictions is just a parlor trick, serving no useful purpose.

I just came back from a drive in the country. The towns around here have city limits far, far larger than is warranted by the population.
They predict that, in a century, their towns will have grown massively. If they don't plan for that now, it will be too late by the time they are certain.
Saying "but it's untestable now" is short-sighted, and assuring it will be too late by the time we act.

The point is: it is not just a matter of "it will either happen or not happen". The purpose of our models is to make more and more accurate predictions, so we can plan ahead.
 
sculptor said:
your models
explain please
what do they predict
and how do they do that?
(what are the inputs?)
Click to expand...
Maybe you should read up a little on the subject?
It's hardly fair to ask us to bring you up-to-speed on climate change science.
 
Last edited:
Do you all recall the biblical story of Noah's ark?
My take:
So climate scientists (Noah) realize that the great catastrophe is immanent ( nature ( God ) is telling them). Through scientific endevour they make predictions and attempt to inform the general public. The public react to this incredible news that the world as they know it is about to end by discrediting the science (Noah) using every "timing" error they can find in those predictions to do so.

However one day when it is way too late to do anything, those predictions come true and the opportunity for salvation is lost and the door to the ark of salvation is closed leaving all those disbelievers left behind to perish. For ark safety reasons, 40 days and nights were allowed for, to ensure the totality of the human cull before the doors were opened again.

The key here is to cease attempting to persuade the "denialist", let nature do that job, and just get on with saving as many and as much as you can.

Facts:
  • Water generally freezes at 0 deg C, Ice thaws at any temperature above 0 deg C
  • Oceans are warming. and becoming acidic.
  • Ice is melting more so every day.
  • Approx. 75% of the Earths surface is water.
  • Water is evaporating more so every day.
  • Water vapor is the most significant aspect of green housing.

even blind Freddy can see we have a massive problem looming in the not too distant future.
( it is already being evidenced with out question)
The difficulty with predictions made by science are not so much about IF but more about WHEN.

Fiction:
"At last after much searching the scientists found a planet worth colonizing. It had oxygen, water, and other resources in abundance but it's atmosphere was hostile, due to it's instability and extreme dynamics. It did have a sustainable and protective magnetosphere to block life destroying solar radiation. It was close and travel distance wasn't a problem.
So it was decided to colonize this planet...as a way to secure the future of the human race
They called this planet .....Earth"
 
Last edited:
DaveC426913 said:
Maybe you should read up a little on the subject?
It's hardly fair to ask us to bring you up-to-speed on climate change science.
Click to expand...

Dave:
You are the one who claimed that they were your models:
our models .
Click to expand...
(post #76)
Ok
So if they are indeed your models---out of the many dozens available---I had assumed that you actually knew something about the models which you claimed as your own.

It seems that you do not know.
You do, however seem a tad on the defensive side in this matter.
Thanks anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top