Remember me
▼ Content

Back-testing the climate model(s)


Back-testing the climate model(s)02-08-2023 01:05
Astro
☆☆☆☆☆
(2)
Greetings,

Fair warning, this is my first post here, and I hope I am not repeating any previous discussions.

I came across this page from NASA - https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page3.php - and it has raised several intriguing questions. For instance, the first graph on this page suggests frequent peak-to-peak temperature fluctuations of over 10C in historical terms.

I am curious to know whether the climate model(s) used today to make predictions for the next century (2C - 6C predicted on the same page) underwent back-testing on the data from the last 800,000 years. Essentially, I wonder if it can predict these historical temperature spikes based on historical environmental inputs. If so, the next question is about the accuracy of such predictions and the error compared to the shown values. I am seeking some evidence that the climate models used today incorporate all the crucial variables responsible for temperature fluctuations.

Looking forward to your response.
02-08-2023 02:16
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(5197)
Astro wrote:
Greetings,

Fair warning, this is my first post here, and I hope I am not repeating any previous discussions.

I came across this page from NASA - https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page3.php - and it has raised several intriguing questions. For instance, the first graph on this page suggests frequent peak-to-peak temperature fluctuations of over 10C in historical terms.

I am curious to know whether the climate model(s) used today to make predictions for the next century (2C - 6C predicted on the same page) underwent back-testing on the data from the last 800,000 years. Essentially, I wonder if it can predict these historical temperature spikes based on historical environmental inputs. If so, the next question is about the accuracy of such predictions and the error compared to the shown values. I am seeking some evidence that the climate models used today incorporate all the crucial variables responsible for temperature fluctuations.

Looking forward to your response.


Why? It's marketing hype, to sell an agenda. The predictions are an interpretation, not the gospel. Computer model predictions are about as accurate and useful, as when they use to kill a goat, reach in and grab a fistful of bloody entrails, and read the future. Astrology, tea leaves, tarot cards, all popular at sometime. Computer models are just the modernized version, and will be popular, as long as people 'believe' in the interpretations, or something new comes out. With climate change, there is a huge marketing campaign. The people buying into it, are willing to give up their very soul to be saved. That makes them easy victims, for those seeking power, control, and wealth.
02-08-2023 03:05
Astro
☆☆☆☆☆
(2)
HarveyH55,

all good points -- I agree. However, many researchers who support the global warming theory and its accompanying agenda are educated and qualified, including those from NASA. This suggests that they probably raise some of the same questions that skeptics do.

Considering the basic nature of my query for anyone involved in modeling, and the vast number of papers published in this domain, it is likely that someone has already addressed this question. They know it has to be done to demonstrate there is no overfitting and, also, to make sure that all the most important variables have been considered. A good model should work consistently and effectively across all types of relevant data. Today or 200,000 years ago...

If this type of testing has not been conducted before, there is a scientific reason to question those simulation models. But I don't read these papers... I am curious to know if anyone knows of such an exercise.
02-08-2023 05:38
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(3012)
@Astro,
You keep mentioning "data".
Why do you believe there is any way to accurately measure the temperature of the earth today, yesterday, or 800,000 years ago from yesterday?

There is no data, therefore any model prediction is nothing more than a clown named Swan plucking numbers from his backside. (I would have said where the sun don't shine, but with the huge hole in his head, he may actually be getting some sunlight down there)
02-08-2023 08:40
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14727)
Astro wrote:However, many researchers who support the global warming theory and its accompanying agenda are educated and qualified, including those from NASA.

Nope. The only people who believe in Global Warming are scientifically illiterate and believe that NASA has some sort of affiliation with science.

Astro wrote: This suggests that they probably raise some of the same questions that skeptics do.

Nope, it means that they worship that religion in the same way that Christians worship God. How many Christians do you know who think that there probably isn't any God because they've never actually seen Him?

Astro wrote: Considering the basic nature of my query for anyone involved in modeling,

There are no climate models. The global climate would have to be unambiguously defined first, and no human has ever unambiguously defined the global climate without violating physics. This is why you have never seen any climate models.

Astro wrote: and the vast number of papers published in this domain,

There have been many papers written on the afterlife. Reality is not determined by the quantity of papers written on unfalsifiable topics.

Astro wrote: it is likely that someone has already addressed this question.

Not a single paper defines the global climate. Every paper EVADES all the questions I would ask.

Astro wrote: They know it has to be done to demonstrate there is no overfitting and, also, to make sure that all the most important variables have been considered.

There are no variables because there are no models. This is why you've never seen any climate models, and the only "variables" you have ever heard of are weather parameters, not climate parameters.

Astro wrote: A good model should work consistently and effectively across all types of relevant data.

Don't forget that there should be data. Unfortunately there isn't any.

Astro wrote: But I don't read these papers...

You are wise. You would never get that time back in your life.

Astro wrote: I am curious to know if anyone knows of such an exercise.

No, but I highly recommend you select a different religion. Global Warming and Climate Change are terrible Marxist religions based on hatred and intolerance whose only objective is to destroy the world economy and make everybody broke.
02-08-2023 10:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22248)
Astro wrote:
HarveyH55,

all good points -- I agree. However, many researchers who support the global warming theory and its accompanying agenda are educated and qualified, including those from NASA. This suggests that they probably raise some of the same questions that skeptics do.

Considering the basic nature of my query for anyone involved in modeling, and the vast number of papers published in this domain, it is likely that someone has already addressed this question. They know it has to be done to demonstrate there is no overfitting and, also, to make sure that all the most important variables have been considered. A good model should work consistently and effectively across all types of relevant data. Today or 200,000 years ago...

If this type of testing has not been conducted before, there is a scientific reason to question those simulation models. But I don't read these papers... I am curious to know if anyone knows of such an exercise.

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth. Anyone saying they can is ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. You cannot create energy out of nothing.

No gas or vapor is capable of warming a surface that is already warmer than themselves, or capable of trapping heat, or trapping thermal energy. That is ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You cannot reduce entropy...ever. Heat always flows from hot to cold, NEVER the reverse.

No gas or vapor is capable of trapping light. This ignores the Stefan-Boltzmann law and Planck's law.

NASA is a government agency. It has nothing to do with science. Indeed, it is IGNORING these three theories of science.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. That ignores statistical mathematics. Trying to predict using statistical mathematics is also ignoring statistical mathematics. Thus, NASA also ignores mathematics.

NASA did not even build the spacecraft that went to the Moon. Boeing, Rockwell, and Grumman did. NASA just flew the spacecraft that these companies built. Today's NASA can't even get to the Moon or even into orbit with a manned spacecraft. It isn't the NASA that went to the Moon. Today's NASA has become a collection of high priests of the Church of Global Warming; throwing away science and mathematics.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
02-08-2023 18:45
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(5197)
Astro wrote:
HarveyH55,

all good points -- I agree. However, many researchers who support the global warming theory and its accompanying agenda are educated and qualified, including those from NASA. This suggests that they probably raise some of the same questions that skeptics do.

Considering the basic nature of my query for anyone involved in modeling, and the vast number of papers published in this domain, it is likely that someone has already addressed this question. They know it has to be done to demonstrate there is no overfitting and, also, to make sure that all the most important variables have been considered. A good model should work consistently and effectively across all types of relevant data. Today or 200,000 years ago...

If this type of testing has not been conducted before, there is a scientific reason to question those simulation models. But I don't read these papers... I am curious to know if anyone knows of such an exercise.


The problem is that there isn't a whole lot of actual 'data'. The use of proxies and analogs, make it speculative, at best. Temperature logging started 1898, but every year a hell of a lot more stations added. Most in cities, with larger populations. Large populations like warmer climates... Satellite readings started in the 1970s. CO2 monitoring started 1956(?), on the side of an active Hawaiian volcano... There is a huge margin-of-error, where the 3 degree Celsius target falls into nicely. They aren't breaking any rules, just exploiting them. They tend to not mention the margin-of-error much...
03-08-2023 05:37
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(3012)
IBdaMann wrote:
Global Warming and Climate Change are terrible Marxist religions based on hatred and intolerance whose only objective is to destroy the world economy and make everybody broke.


This sentence has really had me thinking the last couple days. I do believe I disagree. I'd much appreciate your input.

I'm going rewrite your statement a bit and you tell me where we diverge. It's a mouthful, here we go.


Global Warming and Climate Change are terrible Marxist religions based on hatred and intolerance whose objective is to destroy capitalism everywhere, and reset a world economy under one AI influenced global and digital currency, thereby obtaining total control of any population through the censorship of personal purchasing.

Your thoughts?


Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
03-08-2023 08:37
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14727)
GasGuzzler wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Global Warming and Climate Change are terrible Marxist religions based on hatred and intolerance whose only objective is to destroy the world economy and make everybody broke.


This sentence has really had me thinking the last couple days. I do believe I disagree. I'd much appreciate your input.

I'm going rewrite your statement a bit and you tell me where we diverge. It's a mouthful, here we go.

Global Warming and Climate Change are terrible Marxist religions based on hatred and intolerance whose objective is to destroy capitalism everywhere, and reset a world economy under one AI influenced global and digital currency, thereby obtaining total control of any population through the censorship of personal purchasing.

Your thoughts?

Your sentiment is outstanding. At most, my commentary consists of trivial quibbling, so I am somewhat ashamed to speak up ...


... but I'll nonetheless say a few words:

1. Global Warming and Climate Change are simply separate chapters of the dogma of the same religion. Historically, the name Climate Change emerged first, as a heavy back-pedal to the Global Cooling hysteria of the 70s, when the world was convinced that an ice age was imminent. When that didn't pan out, those who ardently pushed the Global Cooling hysteria began insisting that the world focus on Climate Change. You might not remember it but it was a thing back in the 80s, again as an attempt to save face for having been swept up in the Global Cooling hype. Then Al Gore came along and started his own firebrand church of Global Warming. Remember, he was pushing hard to become President. He pressed the world full-bore with the panic-hype. The Arctice ice would be no more in thirteen years. Humanity was doomed. The planet was doomed. I remember listening to his speeches wondering why nobody seemed to doubt his presumption of omniscience. When no sign of Global Warming came to pass, the Marxists of the world all began to back-pedal, seemingly on cue, insisting that the world focus on Climate Change. I thought "where have I heard that before?" It's all the same Marxist religion/dogma. It is not the case that they are somehow separate competing religions. But I admit that this is a mere quibble.
2) Where you write "... under one AI influenced global and digital currency, thereby obtaining total control of any population through the censorship of personal purchasing " ... you combine four separate tenets from the Communist Manifesto that really need to be addressed individually. They are:

1. [re: AI influenced, global control, note: I have to alter the text to the negative because it otherwise describes the deficiency of not having this power] "is like the sorcerer, who is [not] able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells. [/quote]
2. [re: scam cryptocurrency, SAFEMOON, etc..] "5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly."
3. [re: censorship of the people, society as a controlled communication forum] "6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State."
4. [re: control of personal purchasing and abolition of free markets] "in place of the numberless and indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom—Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation."

Your definition is well-intended to address these points, but once mentioned, must do a better job at clarifying these implications in the definition.

... or ... you can succumb to laziness and simply say that Marxism is a fanatical religion based on hatred and intolerance, singularly focused on destroying any last vestige of happiness in humanity or goodness in the world, but otherwise is fine.

03-08-2023 20:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22248)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Astro wrote:
HarveyH55,

all good points -- I agree. However, many researchers who support the global warming theory and its accompanying agenda are educated and qualified, including those from NASA. This suggests that they probably raise some of the same questions that skeptics do.

Considering the basic nature of my query for anyone involved in modeling, and the vast number of papers published in this domain, it is likely that someone has already addressed this question. They know it has to be done to demonstrate there is no overfitting and, also, to make sure that all the most important variables have been considered. A good model should work consistently and effectively across all types of relevant data. Today or 200,000 years ago...

If this type of testing has not been conducted before, there is a scientific reason to question those simulation models. But I don't read these papers... I am curious to know if anyone knows of such an exercise.


The problem is that there isn't a whole lot of actual 'data'. The use of proxies and analogs, make it speculative, at best. Temperature logging started 1898, but every year a hell of a lot more stations added. Most in cities, with larger populations. Large populations like warmer climates... Satellite readings started in the 1970s. CO2 monitoring started 1956(?), on the side of an active Hawaiian volcano... There is a huge margin-of-error, where the 3 degree Celsius target falls into nicely. They aren't breaking any rules, just exploiting them. They tend to not mention the margin-of-error much...

There isn't ANY data. Proxies and analogs are just making stuff up...as you said, speculation. NONE of them are any measure of temperature either in the past or now.

There was never any temperature logging of Earth's temperature.

Satellites are incapable of reading Earth's temperature. The emissivity of Earth is unknown and cannot be measured.

You are also correct that global atmospheric CO2 content cannot be measured. Not only is the Mauna Loa station located in an active volcano range, by itself it has no chance of measuring the entire atmosphere since CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere.

As you say, the key figure missing in all this is the margin of error value. A required value to be published with any summary. Another key problem is attempting to use statistical math to predict. It is not capable of doing that. A 2nd statistical summary on the SAME data (assuming you have any!) will produce a different summary result.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
04-08-2023 06:46
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(3012)
IBdaMann wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Global Warming and Climate Change are terrible Marxist religions based on hatred and intolerance whose only objective is to destroy the world economy and make everybody broke.


This sentence has really had me thinking the last couple days. I do believe I disagree. I'd much appreciate your input.

I'm going rewrite your statement a bit and you tell me where we diverge. It's a mouthful, here we go.

Global Warming and Climate Change are terrible Marxist religions based on hatred and intolerance whose objective is to destroy capitalism everywhere, and reset a world economy under one AI influenced global and digital currency, thereby obtaining total control of any population through the censorship of personal purchasing.

Your thoughts?

Your sentiment is outstanding. At most, my commentary consists of trivial quibbling, so I am somewhat ashamed to speak up ...


... but I'll nonetheless say a few words:

1. Global Warming and Climate Change are simply separate chapters of the dogma of the same religion. Historically, the name Climate Change emerged first, as a heavy back-pedal to the Global Cooling hysteria of the 70s, when the world was convinced that an ice age was imminent. When that didn't pan out, those who ardently pushed the Global Cooling hysteria began insisting that the world focus on Climate Change. You might not remember it but it was a thing back in the 80s, again as an attempt to save face for having been swept up in the Global Cooling hype. Then Al Gore came along and started his own firebrand church of Global Warming. Remember, he was pushing hard to become President. He pressed the world full-bore with the panic-hype. The Arctice ice would be no more in thirteen years. Humanity was doomed. The planet was doomed. I remember listening to his speeches wondering why nobody seemed to doubt his presumption of omniscience. When no sign of Global Warming came to pass, the Marxists of the world all began to back-pedal, seemingly on cue, insisting that the world focus on Climate Change. I thought "where have I heard that before?" It's all the same Marxist religion/dogma. It is not the case that they are somehow separate competing religions. But I admit that this is a mere quibble.
2) Where you write "... under one AI influenced global and digital currency, thereby obtaining total control of any population through the censorship of personal purchasing " ... you combine four separate tenets from the Communist Manifesto that really need to be addressed individually. They are:

1. [re: AI influenced, global control, note: I have to alter the text to the negative because it otherwise describes the deficiency of not having this power] "is like the sorcerer, who is [not] able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells.

2. [re: scam cryptocurrency, SAFEMOON, etc..] "5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly."
3. [re: censorship of the people, society as a controlled communication forum] "6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State."
4. [re: control of personal purchasing and abolition of free markets] "in place of the numberless and indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom—Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation."

Your definition is well-intended to address these points, but once mentioned, must do a better job at clarifying these implications in the definition.

... or ... you can succumb to laziness and simply say that Marxism is a fanatical religion based on hatred and intolerance, singularly focused on destroying any last vestige of happiness in humanity or goodness in the world, but otherwise is fine.



I will argue with NOTHING you have said here and I should have been more specific. What caused old GasGuzzler to fire on all 16 cylinders was your claim that the climate nutjobs objective is to DESTROY the world economy. I have a differing view.

I think they WANT a one world economy, of course void of any sort of capitalism. A united world, with a central bank, and a world crypto currency is the ultimate goal for total control.

The purpose for the crypto is quite easy to understand. Even Swan may get it. With AI implemented into the monetary system, it can simply deny purchases of ''undesirable items".

Want some gas? AI says you've used your quota this week and you can purchase more on Monday.
Want beef? Sorry, you've purchased your quota for your household this month. You may purchase more beef in September.
Want to buy that new truck with the big V8? Sorry, AI has detected you are over the limit with your household emissions quota. Your only allowable vehicle purchase must be 100% electric.
Want Coors Lite? Sorry, AI has detected you are not supporting enough woke companies. You may only purchase Bud Lite.
WTF you want a been burrito? AI has detected that you have a heart condition and this sale is strictly prohibited.

Call me whacko, but before you do, look into the speeches coming out of the 2023 World Economic Forum. This shit is for real.

So I guess my question for you is...assuming you agree with everything I've said, would these objective be easier to achieve through a united and flourishing world economy, or one that is broken down and destroyed?

...and even as I ask the question I'm realizing I may have only been firing on 15 cylinders. This is what the Joe Bidens of the world do. They create a problem so the fix is less miserable, while each "fix" takes away a few more freedoms and a few more dollars out of my pocket. And now I have come full climate circle.

By the way, sure good to see Ralph again. I just hope he knows how to swim in this hottest summer ever.


Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
Edited on 04-08-2023 06:51
07-08-2023 05:09
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14727)
GasGuzzler wrote:I think they WANT a one world economy, of course void of any sort of capitalism.

You have a contradiction here. The term capitalism means "economics" (or actually "sound economics"). You can't have an economy without economics. Think about it. Imagine a group of slaves who are ordered to go out and work, and then they are called in to eat supper, then they are sent to bed and "lights out." The next day, the same thing. Maybe the slave-master changes the routine and does something different on Thursday. There's no economy there. There are no economics.

Maybe the slave-master pays the slaves money for their work, which they exchange to go to the bathroom, pay for the food they are served, etc ... The existence of credit, and/or money, alone does not create an economy, if it is all a sham because the personal decisions are being centrally controlled. The better way to express what you are talking about is the elimination of free markets and the domination of personal decisions. You can have free markets that are based on bartering (i.e. no money) and the world has had plenty of this, but you cannot have free markets (and sound economics) if the people are slaves and the personal decisions are controlled. This is why conservatives and libertarians are all about free markets with no government interference and leftists are all about dominating every aspect of every market, to include price controls and insane taxes on everything.

The term capitalism was coined by Karl Marx, as a slur/denigration for "economics." Sound economics requires value be added for profit to be gained and for wealth to be created. Karl Marx HATED the idea of having to add value for a living, believing that the rest of the world should just bring him everything he desired while he relaxed comfortably on his sofa. Karl Marx was a whiny, lazy-ass son of a bitch who wouldn't even lift a finger to help his rich father with the family business. I believe Karl Marx lived out his entire life without helping anyone with anything.

GasGuzzler wrote: With AI implemented into the monetary system, it can simply deny purchases of ''undesirable items".

Want some gas? AI says you've used your quota this week and you can purchase more on Monday.
Want beef? Sorry, you've purchased your quota for your household this month. You may purchase more beef in September.
Want to buy that new truck with the big V8? Sorry, AI has detected you are over the limit with your household emissions quota. Your only allowable vehicle purchase must be 100% electric.

You are describing the system that China is implementing. It is a "social credit" system. If you get pulled over for speeding, you lose points. If you engage in a public protest, you lose points. After you have lost a certain amount of points, you lose internet access. After you have lost more points, you lose telephone access, and thereafter you cannot purchase fuel, or you aren't allowed to drive, or you don't receive government services, etc.

There are two main ideas behind this system:

1) It serves as a "credit report" for the people, but instead of creditworthiness, it gauges one's citizenship and worthiness to be treated favorably
2) It serves as a blacklist for any business not in the government's good graces

GasGuzzler wrote: So I guess my question for you is...assuming you agree with everything I've said, would these objective be easier to achieve through a united and flourishing world economy, or one that is broken down and destroyed?

Freedom and free markets go hand-in-hand. If the economy is flourishing then tyranny is weak and leftists are not in power.

GasGuzzler wrote: By the way, sure good to see Ralph again. I just hope he knows how to swim in this hottest summer ever.

That's Frank. Just look at the ears. What are you, blind?




Join the debate Back-testing the climate model(s):

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Heliocentric model is hoax, fraud3004-06-2024 15:35
New Unique Vision For A Better Society Model Book Document For Sale117-06-2023 18:05
Paul Pelosi's butt buddy to be deported back to Canada when released from custody.817-04-2023 13:57
Getting Back to Climate4012-04-2023 05:55
New Bank Type In Banking System To Give Power Back To The People010-08-2022 17:05
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact