Resisting Climate Hysteria

[basilio]

Well wasn't that fascinating....

I put up a post from the the Weather Bureau detailing how extensive the recent heat wave has been, how far off the records it is and the connections with global warming that demonstrate why we should be concerned about the future.

I finished the post with a throwaway reference to the one day record heat event in Sydney.

And the smiley ? I was just trying to be friendly. Rather than say gloomy or catastrophic.

So about 3765 posts later we discover that no-one actually comments on the extensive discussion of causes of the heat wave and a few comments are made pointing out that one hot day doesn't prove anything ( And I agree ! surprise, surprise , surprise !!) .

Then there are the 3600 odd posts jumping on the smiley and deciding I'm gleeful about climate change - or I'm not - or chasing another set of hares down the road that have no relevance to the topic

And of course as the physical events mounts that our climate is changing as predicted over many years Wayne continues to assert there just isn't any evidence for any change.

Congratulations Wayne . You are well on the way to winning the Lance Armstrong award.:mad

 

[basilio]

And these are the other smileys I couldn't fit on the previous post.

:bad:

 

[spooly74]

That is a very perceptive point. Gravity for example is wrong, but useful.
The science of gravity got us to the moon and back. Some dude named Einstein figured out a better model which better explained the observable data, and thus we then had Relativity. It's wrong also but we are still arguing about what is better, still it is the best we have at this point in time (badoom).

Gravity is wrong?
The science of 17th century mathematics got us to the moon and back, Its the same math that gets us to Mars. You could you Einstein's theory, but it would just take longer and you'd get the same result.
Einstein introduced pressure, and its the most tested theory ever.
When was it shown to be wrong and who is arguing about whether its better?

Would you call a mathematical equation a model?

Which leads me to your introductory sentence. Why won't we find any any models that reflect observable data?The climate scientists seem to disagree. Can someone identify where they have got it wrong such that the current models are not just wrong in the useful sense, but that they are useless?

I should have been clearer. Jumped the gun.
You will, we have a very comprehensive model of an atom, for example. It matches reality perfectly but its certainly not a small hard ball.
I was referring to climate models, and by model, meaning computer software that aims to simulate the Earths chaotic climate.
They will always be a representation of reality and never reality itself. Thats the gist of my point.
That doesn't mean they're useless, though, but have limitations.

 

[IFocus]

This is what I find so repugnant, the breathless and gleeful reporting of any extreme weather event these clowns believe bolsters their case.

LOL oh man..........................BTW its Fu(king hot but don't panic its just weather or some twisted plot LOL.

 

[IFocus]

Gravity is wrong?
The science of 17th century mathematics got us to the moon and back, Its the same math that gets us to Mars. You could you Einstein's theory, but it would just take longer and you'd get the same result.
Einstein introduced pressure, and its the most tested theory ever.
When was it shown to be wrong and who is arguing about whether its better?

Would you call a mathematical equation a model?



I should have been clearer. Jumped the gun.
You will, we have a very comprehensive model of an atom, for example. It matches reality perfectly but its certainly not a small hard ball.
I was referring to climate models, and by model, meaning computer software that aims to simulate the Earths chaotic climate.
They will always be a representation of reality and never reality itself. Thats the gist of my point.
That doesn't mean they're useless, though, but have limitations.

A bit off topic but one thing I have found fascinating is how accurate the weather forecast is these days for WA particularly cyclones and their intended path so far out.

I surf so I watch the weather forecasts closely and generally 1 to 2 weeks out they get it pretty close the last cyclone that came down the WA coast was forecast perfectly by these guys spot on. http://www.ecmwf.int/products/forec...tralia!pop!od!oper!public_plots!2012082500!!/

Most of it is modelling which has certainly come a long way.

 

[Calliope]

.

So about 3765 posts later we discover that no-one actually comments on the extensive discussion of causes of the heat wave and a few comments are made pointing out that one hot day doesn't prove anything ( And I agree ! surprise, surprise , surprise !!) .

Then there are the 3600 odd posts jumping on the smiley and deciding I'm gleeful about climate change - or I'm not - or chasing another set of hares down the road that have no relevance to the topic

Typical basilio exaggerations and hissy-fit...and the topic is - wait for it - Resisting Climate Hysteria.

 

[Some Dude]

That doesn't mean they're useless, though, but have limitations.

I agree. My post was a reflection of the quote you provided.

“Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful” - George E. P. Box (b 1919)

My observations were an acknowledgment that scientific theories are models in the context of that quote, wrong but useful. General relativity is a more accurate model than Gravity but it isn't reconciled with Qauntum theory, hence research into other areas attempting to develop the next better model.

Would you call a mathematical equation a model?

By itself, no. E = MC^2 is not a model but it is instrumental in the context of mass and energy within the general and special relativity model.

You will, we have a very comprehensive model of an atom, for example. It matches reality perfectly but its certainly not a small hard ball.
I was referring to climate models, and by model, meaning computer software that aims to simulate the Earths chaotic climate.
They will always be a representation of reality and never reality itself. Thats the gist of my point.
That doesn't mean they're useless, though, but have limitations.

Agreed. I think we are on the same page but correct me if I am mistaken.

I am not aware of any models that reflect observable data at all.

You won't find any.

“Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful” - George E. P. Box (b 1919)

Which leads me to your introductory sentence. Why won't we find any any models that reflect observable data? The climate scientists seem to disagree. Can someone identify where they have got it wrong such that the current models are not just wrong in the useful sense, but that they are useless?

I was seeking clarity here regarding that chain of comments. As with your atom example, it isn't reality but it does reflect a substantially useful version of reality. My understanding is that climate models do reflect reality for previous data in a sufficiently demonstrable manner to the relevant scientific community, even though they are not perfect, and as such provide the best mechanism we currently have for predictions.

In that sense and the context of WayneL's comment, I was clarifying with you that we "won't find any" and "all models are wrong, but some are useful".

 

[Some Dude]

Typical basilio exaggerations and hissy-fit...and the topic is - wait for it - Resisting Climate Hysteria.

Oohhh.. I always read that the other way around. Resisting the hysterical objections to climate science

 

[Calliope]

Oohhh.. I always read that the other way around. Resisting the hysterical objections to climate science

Yes, misrepresenting things is a habit of yours, but, of course, deceit is part of the warmists' agenda.

My post was the third on this thread.

A very rational and timely expose`of climate change hysteria Mickel. Unfortunately the alarmists have very short and selective attention spans and they won't read it. It has to be something lifted from the Age or the Guardian to get their attention.

On the other hand I seldom read their rubbish (except for a laugh.) So it's a Mexican stand-off.

By the way, Monbiot chickened out of debating the issue with Plimer.

 

[Some Dude]

My post was the third on this thread.

My post was teasing you in jest

Would you like me to review and critique the article in your post, the third in this thread?

 

[wayneL]

Well wasn't that fascinating....

I put up a post from the the Weather Bureau detailing how extensive the recent heat wave has been, how far off the records it is and the connections with global warming that demonstrate why we should be concerned about the future.

I finished the post with a throwaway reference to the one day record heat event in Sydney.

And the smiley ? I was just trying to be friendly. Rather than say gloomy or catastrophic.

So about 3765 posts later we discover that no-one actually comments on the extensive discussion of causes of the heat wave and a few comments are made pointing out that one hot day doesn't prove anything ( And I agree ! surprise, surprise , surprise !!) .

Then there are the 3600 odd posts jumping on the smiley and deciding I'm gleeful about climate change - or I'm not - or chasing another set of hares down the road that have no relevance to the topic

And of course as the physical events mounts that our climate is changing as predicted over many years Wayne continues to assert there just isn't any evidence for any change.

Congratulations Wayne . You are well on the way to winning the Lance Armstrong award.:mad

Lance at least came clean in the end. You and your ilk will tout misrepresentations ad infinitum.

I will leave it to your imagination as which dark hole you can shove the above quoted nonsense in.

 

[Calliope]

My post was teasing you in jest

Would you like me to review and critique the article in your post, the third in this thread?

Jest! From an alarmist. No thanks, your "reviews and critiques" are too boring.:bad:

 

[wayneL]

LOL oh man..........................BTW its Fu(king hot but don't panic its just weather or some twisted plot LOL.

Oh! It's summer!

IIRC it's hot in summer in WA.

I remember competing in the WA state championships in early november and it was 42... back in the 80's

I remember out fencing in Caversham in the late 70's, in 45.7 degree heat. All our candles melted and flopped over.

Confirmation bias, the most unintelligent bias of all.

All irrelevant because we must look globally for evidence of warming.

 

[Some Dude]

Jest! From an alarmist. No thanks, your "reviews and critiques" are too boring.:bad:

A pity because your characterisation of the Monbiot encounter had me intrigued.

By the way, Monbiot chickened out of debating the issue with Plimer.

Fascinating stuff when they finally debated.

 

[basilio]

Lance at least came clean in the end. You and your ilk will tout misrepresentations ad infinitum.

.

Ah our first response to nomination for the Lance Armstrong award from that most worthy of nominess of the Global Warming Deniers fraternity !

Lets remember why we have a special Lance Armstrong award. It recognizes the memory of a man whose chiseled features, confident bearing and ruthless conniving managed to secure fame and millions of dollars on a series of lies.

Who managed to BS everyone while denying thousands of pages of forensic evidence compiled by the cycling authorities.

Who finally "gave it up" when all the evidence was put into a huge volume which spelt out in exhausting detail how corrupt he was. (He didn't just own up because he felt bad about it did he now ?)

Don't feel specially honored for this nomination Wayne. There are are far more accomplished liars in your camp that will will have their own day in the limelight when the penny drops.

Cheers.

 

[wayneL]

ASF code of conduct prevents me saying what I really want to say to you, but once again basilio, you show you are totally devoid of honour by referring to me as a denier, despite my oft stated position on the matter.

 

[Mister Mark]

I just think it was .5 degrees hotter for one day, recorded in different ways 70 plus years apart. Call me silly.

 

[white_goodman]

scary..

 

[Knobby22]

Someone tell her she's dreamin'

 

[Smurf1976]

Smurf, what about the heatwaves Sydney has had before? I posted this earlier in the thread and Sydney has had two other heatwaves of about the same temperature. What would have caused these over 70 and 160 years ago?

It seems to me there is nothing new. Nothing has changed. Extreme weather comes as it always has and especially in this country where weather extremes are normal.

I don't doubt that there have been heatwaves before. But I also don't doubt that at least two Australian state capital cities have set new temperature records in the past two weeks.

I also don't doubt that stream flows are changing. What used to be permanently flowing minor creeks are now permanently dry except during a flood. They used to still trickle at the end of Summer but now they're dry even after Winter rains. That's an observable change.

Likewise I don't doubt that SW WA has dried out incredibly over the past 40 years or so and that the same trend is well established in Tasmania. Look at the water authority data in WA and it shows a clear change beyond dispute and has driven the water authority first to ground water and then to desalination as inflows to dams dried up.

It's similar in Tasmania, with a clear change (downward) in run-off compared to that which prevailed through most of the 20th Century. In both cases, the trends start in the 1970's.

The one that really puzzles me is the "rain hole" (my invented term but I know others who have adopted it also) during Autumn in Tasmania. There's a reasonably steep decline and if you take a rolling 5 year average then it's almost linear. There isn't much change in Winter, Spring or Summer but there's a huge decline in Autumn which drives a modest (about 15%) decline in annual water inflows. That decline would be even larger if not for the annual cloud seeding program in Tasmania during Winter and Spring.

I won't claim to understand the reasoning behind all this but I do know that things are drying out. I can see it in the data and I can see it on bushwalking trips. It's drier now than it used to be, even after the recent "wet" period which hasn't fully offset the previous drought. Something must be driving that change, and if it's occurring in both WA and Tas then the cause is unlikely to be local.

I'm not claiming a link to CO2 here (though it's possible). I'm just noting that the climate has changed in my local environment and this creates issues with human activities (farming, urban water supply, power generation, fire fighting etc) trying to cope with the changes.