[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

When you can predict a horse race with a model come see me. Until that time don't be telling me you can predict, or hope to predict some time in the near future a system which is almost infinitely more complex.

At present we have some predictive power of weather systems a few days in advance. Go any farther into the future than that, and you might as well use tarot cards.

OK, let's put your money where your mouth is. I will bet you a case of beer that the average temperature here in Vancouver will be warmer for July 2010 than it is for November 2009. I'll even spot you a 10 deg C margin. I drink Old Speckled Hen. That's predicting the future a good 7 months in advance!!!

$1:

Was somebody saying earlier there were no scientists involved in the predictions of global cooling in the 70s? Bullshit. One of the big guys at NASA was one of the main proponents. He used a model developed by a young, up and comer named James Hansen. James Hansen is now one of the main pushers of the global warming drug. In 1988 Hansen used models to create a prediction of what climate would do. He was way off.

The fact that some scientists were wrong about global cooling in the 70s does not mean that scientists are wrong about global warming now. Atmospheric cooling is, in fact, still alive and well as a theory. Particulate matter will tend to lower temperatures. Some people are thinking about seeding the upper atmosphere with particulate matter if, in fact, global warming becomes untenable.

But I take your point. Scientist are often wrong, and they are certainly subject to "groupthink." I'd be inclined to agree that the treatment of some skeptic scientists has been atrocious, which I think is a sure sign of "groupthink." I don't understand why global warming advocates feel it is so important to point out that some skeptics are funded by industry. What has that got to do with it? If they are trying--through legitimate science--to poke holes in the various theories, then that's a good thing for science in my books, regardless of where they got their research funding from.

$1:

Models at first told us there would be warming at both poles. The North pole warmed. The South pole did not. They simply changed their interpretation of the models, and claimed that was what they said all the time. Later this guy named Steig came up with this study using magic math, claiming the south pole actually had warmed. The warmists then said, "Yeah that's what the models said all along, warming at both poles". However when - as is usually the case, and will no doubt be the case with this Greenland is currently getting warmer in spite of the fact we can easily look at a graph and see the arctic ice pack taking a record jump study - that study turned out to be bogus, and useful only to generate a quick media headline. The model predictions of warming at both poles were once more proved false by reality.

Of course they changed their models. Wouldn't you change your model if it was incorrect? Science itself is a model that is constantly changing. I don;t know all that much about modelling, but I'd be inclined to agree their conclusions are suspect (which is why I base my belief in global warming on CO2 concentrations). But they're still better than a wild-ass guess.

$1:

At present we've got these bogus modeled predictions, and in the name of those you want to what? Go multi-trillions of dollars into debt, unravel the economic and social structure of the world, and sign over your country's sovereignty to the UN?

No, I don't think I've ever said that. Or anything even close to that. I think what I've said is that doubling the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will measurably raise the temperature of the globe. I say we pick the low hanging fruit to limit CO2 emissions adn develop mitigation and adaptation strategies to deal with it.

No offence, but it's statements like those that make me wonder who the alarmists are here.

[CanadianJeff]

And Yet religion tries to predict doomsday all the time. If your going to give science flack for lack of evidence on their predictions....

[Brenda]

December 13th 2012 is the end of times

[gigs]

Brenda Brenda:

December 13th 2012 is the end of times

Actually its the 21st but only because the Mayans ran out of paper for their calendar.

Looks like a good movie though!

[N_Fiddledog]

The fact soothsayers are incorrect does not magically make models correct. Nor does changing the models every time they're proven incorrect - which is often, in fact usually. The fact is they don't work. They never have been useful as long term predictive tools. Will they ever? It's hard to say never, but if you're going to try to predict when, you might as well use a model...or an astrological chart.

And predicting summer will come is not the same thing as trying to predict the vagaries or subtleties of ocean movements, cloud occurrences, or solar disturbances years in advance and those effects on each other. Sorry, but no easy beer for you, Zip.

[Annihilator]

There's one simple rule you have to know: Whenever the medias touch science, they fuck it up.

Now, the public opinion about global warming is not based upon scientific studies, but over fucked up twisted half-true pieces of a scientific study pushed upon everyone by the medias.

What really happens is that we're faced with the chaos theory. We could predict the future, but there are so many things invovled that we cannot create a model that will accurately predict what will happen. We do not know if earth is going through a natural cycle or warming is caused by humans, and we do not know how it will be in a hundred years. Just look at the weather channel, they fuck up half of the time.

However, that doesn't stop people from using golbal warming as an argument against globalisation, corporations and capitalism, the "evil" people destroying the earth for money.

[herbie]

It's simple. The Global Warming that's so last year made the ice melt. As anyone who's ever owned a beer cooler knows, the melting ice draws heat from everything else, so now there's Global Cooling.

-----www.frendz_uf_sceince.com

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

And predicting summer will come is not the same thing as trying to predict the vagaries or subtleties of ocean movements, cloud occurrences, or solar disturbances years in advance and those effects on each other. Sorry, but no easy beer for you, Zip.

You didn't say anything about summer, ocean movements etc. You said that the weather after a few days couldn't be predicted by science any better than by tarot cards. I called you on that. I take it then that you aren't going to take me up on my bet? Guess you'll have to concede the point then.

[Zipperfish]

Annihilator Annihilator:

There's one simple rule you have to know: Whenever the medias touch science, they fuck it up.

Now, the public opinion about global warming is not based upon scientific studies, but over fucked up twisted half-true pieces of a scientific study pushed upon everyone by the medias.

What really happens is that we're faced with the chaos theory. We could predict the future, but there are so many things invovled that we cannot create a model that will accurately predict what will happen. We do not know if earth is going through a natural cycle or warming is caused by humans, and we do not know how it will be in a hundred years. Just look at the weather channel, they fuck up half of the time.

However, that doesn't stop people from using golbal warming as an argument against globalisation, corporations and capitalism, the "evil" people destroying the earth for money.

I predict that that the average temperature in Vancouver in July 2010 will be warmer than the average temperature in November 2009. You wouldn't believe the chaos theory spreadsheet I had to put together to predict the weather a full 7 months from now, but I've managed to pull it off.

I'll bet you a case of beer that I'm right. I'll even spot you 10 deg C!!!

If you really think that we can't predict the weather more than a few days in advance, then you'll take me up on my bet. I hope so, anyways. Beer is expensive these days. I drink Old Speckled Hen.

[Annihilator]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Annihilator Annihilator:

There's one simple rule you have to know: Whenever the medias touch science, they fuck it up.

Now, the public opinion about global warming is not based upon scientific studies, but over fucked up twisted half-true pieces of a scientific study pushed upon everyone by the medias.

What really happens is that we're faced with the chaos theory. We could predict the future, but there are so many things invovled that we cannot create a model that will accurately predict what will happen. We do not know if earth is going through a natural cycle or warming is caused by humans, and we do not know how it will be in a hundred years. Just look at the weather channel, they fuck up half of the time.

However, that doesn't stop people from using golbal warming as an argument against globalisation, corporations and capitalism, the "evil" people destroying the earth for money.

I predict that that the average temperature in Vancouver in July 2010 will be warmer than the average temperature in November 2009. You wouldn't believe the chaos theory spreadsheet I had to put together to predict the weather a full 7 months from now, but I've managed to pull it off.

I'll bet you a case of beer that I'm right. I'll even spot you 10 deg C!!!

If you really think that we can't predict the weather more than a few days in advance, then you'll take me up on my bet. I hope so, anyways. Beer is expensive these days. I drink Old Speckled Hen.

That exemple is dumb and is in no way equivalent to the topic at hand.

The fact that summer is hotter than winter is well known because it is a regular cycle that happens every year and that we've experienced many time.

That is in no way the case of global warming and there is nothing that we can use that will make us able to accurately predict the weather in 200 years.

[Zipperfish]

Annihilator Annihilator:

That exemple is dumb and is in no way equivalent to the topic at hand.

The fact that summer is hotter than winter is well known because it is a regular cycle that happens every year and that we've experienced many time.

That is in no way the case of global warming and there is nothing that we can use that will make us able to accurately predict the weather in 200 years.

Boy that's two cases of Old Speckled Hen already!

Here's another thing that's been "experienced many times" in laboratories the world over thousands of times--when you compare two gas cells, one with air and the other with the same air except more carbon dioxide added to it, the gas cell with air that has more carbon dioxide added to it will be warmer. Absolutely as predictable as July being warmer than January in most of the the northern hemisphere. But you can't convince the sceptics of that. Why is that?

Also, the reason that it's so easy for me to predict that July will be warmer than November is that I'm using averages, I'm taking all the temperatures in aggregate. It could well be the hottest temperature in November will exceed the coldest temperature in July, but averaging the temperatures out tends to reduce the effect of these statistical outliers. Because of this, it often becomes easier, not more difficult, to predict the outcomes of chaotic systems over time.

Not such a dumb example after all!

[DerbyX]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Annihilator Annihilator:

That exemple is dumb and is in no way equivalent to the topic at hand.

The fact that summer is hotter than winter is well known because it is a regular cycle that happens every year and that we've experienced many time.

That is in no way the case of global warming and there is nothing that we can use that will make us able to accurately predict the weather in 200 years.

Boy that's two cases of Old Speckled Hen already!

Here's another thing that's been "experienced many times" in laboratories the world over thousands of times--when you compare two gas cells, one with air and the other with the same air except more carbon dioxide added to it, the gas cell with air that has more carbon dioxide added to it will be warmer. Absolutely as predictable as July being warmer than January in most of the the northern hemisphere. But you can't convince the sceptics of that. Why is that?

Also, the reason that it's so easy for me to predict that July will be warmer than November is that I'm using averages, I'm taking all the temperatures in aggregate. It could well be the hottest temperature in November will exceed the coldest temperature in July, but averaging the temperatures out tends to reduce the effect of these statistical outliers. Because of this, it often becomes easier, not more difficult, to predict the outcomes of chaotic systems over time.

Not such a dumb example after all!

correct. Its like predicting the leafs will lose. Steady as the tides.

[Annihilator]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Annihilator Annihilator:

That exemple is dumb and is in no way equivalent to the topic at hand.

The fact that summer is hotter than winter is well known because it is a regular cycle that happens every year and that we've experienced many time.

That is in no way the case of global warming and there is nothing that we can use that will make us able to accurately predict the weather in 200 years.

Boy that's two cases of Old Speckled Hen already!

Here's another thing that's been "experienced many times" in laboratories the world over thousands of times--when you compare two gas cells, one with air and the other with the same air except more carbon dioxide added to it, the gas cell with air that has more carbon dioxide added to it will be warmer. Absolutely as predictable as July being warmer than January in most of the the northern hemisphere. But you can't convince the sceptics of that. Why is that?

Also, the reason that it's so easy for me to predict that July will be warmer than November is that I'm using averages, I'm taking all the temperatures in aggregate. It could well be the hottest temperature in November will exceed the coldest temperature in July, but averaging the temperatures out tends to reduce the effect of these statistical outliers. Because of this, it often becomes easier, not more difficult, to predict the outcomes of chaotic systems over time.

Not such a dumb example after all!

I'm sorry, but how did you gather an average on global warming? If golbal warming is caused by man, then it is probably the first time in the history of earth that it happens. If it's the first time, it's impossible to do an average. If you would like to do an average, you would need to have creater thosands on planets on which you have created different intelligent populations, and examined the effect of their activity on wheather over thousands of years, and concluded that gas emission created by the populations' industries will on average lead to a global warming. But as you can see, it's not that simple. The averages about wheather that we have now are in no way sufficient to predict the issue of a situation that we've never faced before, that is global warming.

Secondly, there is much more to weather changes than the quantity of carbon dioxyde. It can have an effect to some extand, but there are many other things involved in a very particular way that we do not fully understand yet. Saying that you can predict that more CO2 will automatically lead to much warmer temperatures in the future is bullshit, as we do not fully understand its effects on wheather. Compared to all the gas created on earth, man-made CO2 represents a very slim part of it, so saying that there will be a direct correlation between earth temperature and man made CO2 is wrong.

Basically, what you're doing is that you're taking the whole situation and dealing with it in an overly simple manner. There are thousands of different variables involved in this and making predictions about how the earth can warm up takes a lot of knowledge in this very specific scientific area. Even if you are one of the best expert in the world about this subject, it will be very hard to be sure about those predictions. You can't just use a few variables, use anecdotal evidences and try to make a prediction out of it.

Finally, even if it turns out that there is indeed a global warming, it will be irrelevant, as there is no direct correlation between human activity and wheather changes. There is no proof that the earth isn't going through a natural warming cycle, there is no proof that it is the man and not the sun that is causing the warming.

To sum it up, averages about annual cycles are irrelevant, this subject is way too complicated for you to make predictions from pieces of scientific evidences, there are way too many variables involved to create a linear correlation between C02 and global warming, and no statistical averages about man-made global warming have been gathered, all of those making your exemples unrelated and irrelevant.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

And predicting summer will come is not the same thing as trying to predict the vagaries or subtleties of ocean movements, cloud occurrences, or solar disturbances years in advance and those effects on each other. Sorry, but no easy beer for you, Zip.

You didn't say anything about summer, ocean movements etc.

I sure as Hell did. In fact my exact words were...

$1:

So you know, you can dream into the future about some fantasy computer that will tell you everything you want to know about what the sun, clouds, and ocean currents will be doing in a hundred years, but at present no, scientists can not predict the future of climate, and their hopes of doing so in any for-see-able future are about as silly as the false predictions they're currently offering.

$1:

You said that the weather after a few days couldn't be predicted by science any better than by tarot cards.

Cherry picking, but that's what you guys are good at. But yes I also said...

$1:

At present we have some predictive power of weather systems a few days in advance. Go any farther into the future than that, and you might as well use tarot cards.

In the context of the full post it would be obvious to anybody, but an idiot what was actually meant by that. It wasn't you can't predict summer and winter, or day and night for that matter.

You're being silly, but it does remind me of an actual serious argument I've heard.

It goes you can't predict the waves, but you can predict the tides. Here's the thing though, can you? Can you really? Can you tell me how high a tide will be in a year? Because global warming predictions are not just saying there will be warming from CO2, they're saying there will be enough real world, CO2 forced warming, even accounting for other climatic forces to create disasters, and what those disasters will be.

Oh, and speaking about the CO2 experiment with the 2 bottles there was a cute one happened a couple of weeks ago. There used to be a page on the NOAA site offering up that experiment for kids. At the end of the lecture the guy said something like, although we know CO2 causes such warming under laboratory conditions there's no way to know what will happen in the real world when faced with other feedbacks. Here's the joke though. A skeptic found that, and published it on his blog. The next day the offending line was edited from the NOAA site. Apparently we're not supposed to know that last bit.

[N_Fiddledog]

Here's another cute little greenhouse gas experiment for you to conduct Zip. I've done it. Go outside on a muggy summer's evening. It's still hot right. OK now go outside at night, after a hot day in the desert. It's unpleasantly cold, subjectively speaking, of course. In fact I would say damned cold. Why is that? Keep in mind CO2 is supposed to spread throughout the planet, and that CO2 is supposed to be melting the polar icecaps.