Remember me
▼ Content

climate models


climate models04-08-2020 14:54
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(571)
Just watched a very interesting show that started with the Alarmists claims however sensible people came on later and explained how inaccurate the modelling is and how complex the weather/climate is and it seems every time a new model is developed within a very short time frame it shows to be completely wrong and on we go spending more billions on more climate models that dont work.One Scientist claimed we are a long way of being able to predict the future and possibly never will be able to create a model that works as there are 2 many variables that can not be controlled.I fitted a water filter today for a very nice young lady and did my usual and asked her opinion.The first thing she stated was we are warmer.I dispelled that in about 10 seconds.Then sea level rise.Another 10 seconds.Polar bears was next about 30 seconds for that myth to be busted.I feel I am in a well informed place to raise awareness with my clients and the review she left me later was rather flattering and she said I was interesting and charming.She took my number before I left I hope she starts stalking me but there is more chance of AGW/CC being real than that happening


duncan61
04-08-2020 18:05
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7461)
duncan61 wrote: Just watched a very interesting show that started with the Alarmists claims however sensible people came on later and explained how inaccurate the modelling is

The problem you should see in all of this is that "both" sides are talking as though they have seen these supposed "models." There aren't any "models" in the first place. The big con is getting you to believe that there actually are models. One way to get you to believe in their existence is to pump up your ego and to play on natural defiance by getting you to think that you are rejecting the logic of the models ... which means that you now accept that the models exist and are real.

Think of it this way. Imagine that some Marxists have a political agenda that requires you to gullibly believe in gremlins ... so they couch their issue in the form of a "debate" whereby crazy insane alarmists make wild claims about attacks by violent purple gremlins on towns and villages. Then the other "side" begins explaining, speaking more calmly and rationally, using wording and cultural norms that you associate with reason and authority, that the gremlins are only 0.02% violent and they aren't even purple ... they're bright muave ... so there is absolutely no reason to panic. You decide to agree with the rational "side" that gremlins are muave and passive. Then you come to Climate-Debate and arsheoles like IBDaMann try to tell you "duncan, there are no gremlins! Snap out of it! Wake up!"

duncan ... there are no climate models. The entire debate concerning "climate models" is a ruse to get you to believe in the nonexistent "global climate". If you believe in such a nonexistent thing then you can be made to believe that something else that is nonexistent "damages" this "global climate" and political leaders will then manipulate you through their control of this other invisible, nonexistent thing. The coronaflu is an example of something invisible that is being used to manipulate us. "Global Climate" is another.

You are familiar with the phrase "divide and conquer"? These invisible things are used to divide us and play us against each others, i.e. the gullible vs. the aware. People who fall victim to coronhoax HATE those who refuse to wear masks and perform like trained seals for the public's amusement. Climate Justice Warriors HATE "deniers." The BLM-indoctrinated HATE those who don't accept "systemic racism."

Regardless of on what "side" of the "debate" someone might be, ask everyone who talks about "climate models" to email you a copy of the model about which he/she is talking. Note the surprise when you make the request, as if that's not supposed to happen. I know that if anyone were to talk about gremlins being passive and muave, I would definitely want to see one of these "gremlins."


duncan61 wrote: ... and how complex the weather/climate is and it seems every time a new model is developed within a very short time frame it shows to be completely wrong and on we go spending more billions on more climate models that dont work.

When I hear that a certain "climate model" won't work, I want to see the model so I can see for myself. duncan, post this latest model that doesn't work here in Climate-Debate.

duncan61 wrote: One Scientist claimed we are a long way of being able to predict the future and possibly never will be able to create a model that works as there are 2 many variables

Really? How many variables are there in a "climate"? Just look on the model and count the variables it has.

duncan61 wrote: I fitted a water filter today for a very nice young lady and did my usual and asked her opinion.The first thing she stated was we are warmer.I dispelled that in about 10 seconds.Then sea level rise.Another 10 seconds.Polar bears was next about 30 seconds for that myth to be busted.I feel I am in a well informed place to raise awareness with my clients and the review she left me later was rather flattering and she said I was interesting and charming.She took my number before I left I hope she starts stalking me but there is more chance of AGW/CC being real than that happening

Give her the Politiplex link to (or just show her if convenient) the conversations with CCLA

https://politiplex.freeforums.net/post/170









.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-08-2020 20:02
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2399)
Actually, there are models, and you can download them. They weren't what I was hoping for though, and didn't mess around. I wanted to feed datasets of crazy none related things, just to see if the output would be about the same, as the supplied data. Unfortunately, the models only use their data. You only get to mess with a very limited set of parameters.

I do believe there is some elaborate simulation software, and many computer models, but they aren't any different than video games. You can program a computer to do many things, doesn't mean there is any value in what the program puts out. You feed in garbage data, you are going to get garbage out. Mostly it's just fantasy, and speculation. The just play a 'what if' game, doesn't make any of it real. I get a feeling that a lot of the covid stats, are from models. Only a small percentage of people have actually been 'nose-raped' for a sample. Only 5-6 percent of the tests come back positive, though seen over 15% some places/days. Basically, the number of positives, are in the thousands of 1% of the whole population, on any single day.
04-08-2020 23:21
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7461)
HarveyH55 wrote: Actually, there are models, and you can download them.

Harvey, I have bad news for you. Those are not models. Those are computer programs. Computer programs can implement models but models do not need computer programs.

People who are honest: Computer Program ≠ Model
Gullible People: Computer Program = Model

People, however, are capable of lying; they can claim that a computer program is implementing Model X when it isn't ... and they can fool people by simply referring to the computer program as "Model X" and expect you to just accept all output as geniune results of Model X when it is all just garbage fabricated by a bulslhit computer program.

Would you call this a model or a computer program or both:



I want the "Climate" model and not any computer program. If the people who wrote the program actually implemented a model then they have the model they implemented in the program and I want that so I can write my own computer program that implements that same model ... and I should therefore get the exact same results for the same inputs, yes?

Since I am not gullible, I normally laugh when someone tells me that s/he has a Climate model ... that he runs on his computer!

I don't accept computer programs when I ask for models.

On the other hand, if you can get me all the source code for the computer program you downloaded I could probably reverse-engineer the model from the algorithm. Can you do that?

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-08-2020 23:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13280)
duncan61 wrote:
Just watched a very interesting show that started with the Alarmists claims however sensible people came on later and explained how inaccurate the modelling is and how complex the weather/climate is and it seems every time a new model is developed within a very short time frame it shows to be completely wrong and on we go spending more billions on more climate models that dont work.

The biggest problem here is that a model, any model, is based on a theory. A theory is an explanatory argument. Like any argument, it consists of a set of predicates and a conclusion. The only difference is that the conclusion is explanatory in nature.

Arguments must be internally consistent. This means that in order to be a valid argument, it must be free of fallacies. The use of buzzwords that are not defined in an argument renders that argument a void, since the definition of such buzzwords are a void. A void argument is a fallacy. It is no different for a theory, whether it is a theory of science or not. Science also refers to this as the 'internal consistency check'. It is required of ALL theories, even if they are not scientific ones.

In science, the model is like the 'noun' of a theory. It is the object the theory is using as a predicate, and it's conclusion refers to the same 'noun', or model.

When it comes to 'climate science', or 'climate change', or 'global warming'; these phrases are buzzwords. They have no meaning. 'Greenhouse effect' is based on the meaning of the buzzword 'global warming', so it too is using an undefined predicate. This makes the 'greenhouse effect' arguments in and of themselves not internally consistent. They can never be a theory of science for that reason alone.

Now to the 'complexity' argument:

The world is complex. The purpose of science is not to discover everything. Even if we somehow come up with a Universal Equation that explains everything, and plug it into a computer to model it all, the resulting data is just as complex and of course would take an unreasonable amount time to unravel. We would have learned NOTHING.

The purpose of science is not to explain everything or to gain the ultimate knowledge. It is to instead distill down the essential elements of a phenomenon, and explain it in simple terms. This is the purpose of the models as well.

For example:
A single theory, such as F=mA (Newton's law of motion), ignores quite a lot. It ignores why a cloud appears in the sky, or why they tend to appear at similar altitudes. It ignores what gravity actually is. It doesn't care about the characteristics of iron in a hot fire. It doesn't care about how a tree grows.

The only thing it is describing is how force acts on a mass to accelerate it.

Seemingly simple, but with incredible ramifications. For one thing, it concentrates our efforts into describing what 'force' is, what 'mass' is, and what 'acceleration' is. This simple equation making use of a couple of differentials and a scalar, is what eventually led to Einstein's Theory of Relativity and his Special Theory of Relativity. It also helped us understand how birds (and us) fly. They need gravity to fly. As it was so humorously put in Toy Story, Buzz Lightyear described flying as 'falling, but with style'. That's actually rather true! An airplane can fly because it's falling. It's engine provides the power to haul it into the sky anyway. Gliders are essentially solar powered aircraft. They can stay up for hours, just on sunlight alone, as that sunlight heats the Earth unevenly beneath the glider.

What Einstein realized, that Newton did not, is that there is no absolute zero speed, save what you yourself declare to be 'zero'. He also began to see that light and mass are related, and that any energy and mass are related. Einstein used a model of spacecraft accelerating as a beam of light crossed the interior to strike a target. He realized that light took time to cross the gap, and would miss the target, just as if the light was bending. Since it was caused by acceleration, and gravity is a force that can cause acceleration, he was able to relate the two: light and gravity.

All this from a simple equation relating force, mass, and acceleration.

What models did Newton use? Observing canon balls, or any object being thrown, and using the observations and measurements made by Galileo, one of the 'giants' he 'stood on the shoulders of' to see further than he could see on his own, that he wrote about in his notes.

Weather consists of many complexities and factors, but each can again be distilled down into its essentials. These models and theories cannot in and of themselves predict, but the equation that comes out of them CAN. This is there science, an open functional system incapable of prediction in and of itself, must turn to a closed functional system like mathematics to gain that power of prediction. The power of prediction available ONLY in a closed functional system. It comes with the power of the formal proof.

Mathematics is inherently capable of prediction. Science is not. A theory of science explains, but cannot predict. Models that these theories are used to help develop an equation that CAN be used to predict. This is what gives science is great relevance.

It is the power to distill the essential elements out of complexity, and turn that model back into the complexity and have it work.

No theory of any kind can ever be proven True. A theory of science CAN be proven False. A non-scientific theory cannot be proven False or True. Any theory of science can disappear at any time. A theory of science can be created at any time.

It is the essential explanation out of complex world that is the core of why science has such great relevance.

duncan61 wrote:
One Scientist claimed we are a long way of being able to predict the future and possibly never will

Science does not predict the future. It cannot predict. Only math or logic can predict. A theory of science MUST be transcribed into an equation to gain the power of prediction. This equation is called a 'law' of science. This translation is from an open functional system (science) to a closed one (mathematics).
duncan61 wrote:
be able to create a model that works as there are 2 many variables that can not be controlled.

Again, this is not the point of any model. It is to distill out the essential aspects of a phenomenon, not to explain Everything.
duncan61 wrote:
I fitted a water filter today for a very nice young lady and did my usual and asked her opinion.

Good for you. The more people made aware, the better.
duncan61 wrote:
The first thing she stated was we are warmer.I dispelled that in about 10 seconds.

Excellent. You have the tools you need now. You are making a difference.
duncan61 wrote:
Then sea level rise.Another 10 seconds.

Again, excellent.
duncan61 wrote:
Polar bears was next about 30 seconds for that myth to be busted.

Again, excellent. You have reached the point that you can help people overcome their ignorance on these issues. You are arming them against the constant propaganda and chanting from the Church of Global Warming. You are arming them again tyranny itself.
duncan61 wrote:
I feel I am in a well informed place to raise awareness with my clients

You are.
duncan61 wrote:
and the review she left me later was rather flattering and she said I was interesting and charming.

It's funny how that works! Sometimes you come across a real fanatic that will condemn you to hell. Many times, people appreciate the new understanding they've gained by your efforts.
duncan61 wrote:
She took my number before I left I hope she starts stalking me but there is more chance of AGW/CC being real than that happening

Sounds like you WANT her to stalk you!



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
Edited on 05-08-2020 00:21
05-08-2020 03:17
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(571)
My last comment to her was if you stalk me I will have no defence at all so lets get on with it.You sorta had to be there.The programs that are considered modelling are like the one that shows everything going red over a time period.I would like the board to consider this.A sole sailor gets in trouble in the Southern ocean and the navy sends a Frigate to rescue them and the paper claims it cost XYZ.I am sure it would cost that regardless where the Frigate went and the Billions claimed on making programs is it including the cost of launching the Satelittes as well.
05-08-2020 05:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13280)
duncan61 wrote:
My last comment to her was if you stalk me I will have no defence at all so lets get on with it.You sorta had to be there.The programs that are considered modelling are like the one that shows everything going red over a time period.I would like the board to consider this.A sole sailor gets in trouble in the Southern ocean and the navy sends a Frigate to rescue them and the paper claims it cost XYZ.I am sure it would cost that regardless where the Frigate went and the Billions claimed on making programs is it including the cost of launching the Satelittes as well.


Any idiot can paint a picture red. Any idiot can make up numbers and call them data too.


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




Join the debate climate models:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
New climate models forecast a warming surge019-04-2019 15:36
Do you believe UN IPCC makes fake models to bring down Anglos and usher in New World Order?1318-02-2019 18:08
Are falsifiable models the only way to validate science?3318-10-2015 19:35
..Dynamic and Static globe models of the Earth128-09-2015 22:12
▲ 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