Communitarianism...UN Agenda 21

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

Re: Communitarianism...UN Agenda 21

Postby Carleas » Thu Feb 20, 2020 6:04 pm

A recent study of past climate models finds that they made accurate predictions of how the climate would change over the past 50 years. Unfortunately it's behind a paywall and my work blocks scihub, so I can read the specifics. From the abstract:
We find that climate models published over the past five decades were skillful in predicting subsequent GMST changes, with most models examined showing warming consistent with observations, particularly when mismatches between model‐projected and observationally estimated forcings were taken into account.

That last sentence is explained further in a "plain language summary":
Model projections rely on two things to accurately match observations: accurate modeling of climate physics and accurate assumptions around future emissions of CO2 and other factors affecting the climate. The best physics‐based model will still be inaccurate if it is driven by future changes in emissions that differ from reality. To account for this, we look at how the relationship between temperature and atmospheric CO2 (and other climate drivers) differs between models and observations. We find that climate models published over the past five decades were generally quite accurate in predicting global warming in the years after publication, particularly when accounting for differences between modeled and actual changes in atmospheric CO2 and other climate drivers.

That "other factors affecting the climate" gives me pause, so salt as needed until we have the full study before us, but if true this is effectively an experimental validation of the climate theories baked into the models.
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi
 
Posts: 6084
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Re: Communitarianism...UN Agenda 21

Postby WendyDarling » Thu Feb 20, 2020 9:01 pm

Carleas wrote:A recent study of past climate models finds that they made accurate predictions of how the climate would change over the past 50 years. Unfortunately it's behind a paywall and my work blocks scihub, so I can read the specifics. From the abstract:
We find that climate models published over the past five decades were skillful in predicting subsequent GMST changes, with most models examined showing warming consistent with observations, particularly when mismatches between model‐projected and observationally estimated forcings were taken into account.

That last sentence is explained further in a "plain language summary":
Model projections rely on two things to accurately match observations: accurate modeling of climate physics and accurate assumptions around future emissions of CO2 and other factors affecting the climate. The best physics‐based model will still be inaccurate if it is driven by future changes in emissions that differ from reality. To account for this, we look at how the relationship between temperature and atmospheric CO2 (and other climate drivers) differs between models and observations. We find that climate models published over the past five decades were generally quite accurate in predicting global warming in the years after publication, particularly when accounting for differences between modeled and actual changes in atmospheric CO2 and other climate drivers.

That "other factors affecting the climate" gives me pause, so salt as needed until we have the full study before us, but if true this is effectively an experimental validation of the climate theories baked into the models.


Where's the evidence of how they conducted the study? They could have typed in "global warming model" and when those words popped up in their search said those models accurately predicted global warming, right? Can you point me to a legitimate study or two where climate scientists have gathered their data from the actual current weather and CO2 emissions compared it with the actual past climate readings from 50 years ago or so then said it was due largely to human activity and not natural phenomenon, not a google search study evidence that your giving me that doesn't confirm anything but that a particular word appeared in the study. I'd really like to read some legitimate research. Denialists are even saying that NOAA is cooking the books with their current temp records. Also that the reason that global warming catch phrase fell by the wayside and it became about climate change instead is that the air temps were not showing an average 1 degree increase but actually .33% over the last 100 years but the ocean had an average 1 degree increase so global warming which referred to the air temps had to be changed to climate change since they couldn't prove the increased air temps. Read a story about great barrier reef scientists claiming that ocean temp increases were killing the barrier reef with their bleachings, then read about how the scientists, NOAA, and ICPP refuse to include reef bleachings from cold water temperature changes as if those don't exist. Temperature decreases don't go along with their temperature increase agenda so those occurrences are not reported officially by NOAA, IPCC, the UN.

Is CO2 bad? In what ways is CO2 bad? One study that proves that CO2 damages life on Earth would go along way. Got one? Temperatures have run in cycles throughout our history. It's said that temperatures thousands of years ago were warmer than they are now and that there were higher CO2 readings without human life existing than there is today.

Yeah, getting access to full studies is turning out to be difficult. Not sure how to find them and round them up. The scientific databases that recommend searches and do the searches want money, I'm guessing substantial money since they assign their representatives to walk you through the process. Let me know if you have some leads to studies.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 7505
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Communitarianism...UN Agenda 21

Postby Carleas » Thu Feb 20, 2020 9:47 pm

WendyDarling wrote:Where's the evidence of how they conducted the study?

I assume it's in the study, but as I said, I can't get it.

WendyDarling wrote:They could have typed in "global warming model" and when those words popped up in their search said those models accurately predicted global warming, right?

I'm assuming the study has a "methods" section. And I assume it actually specifies the models that it tested, so that other climate scientists could verify what those models predicted and how close they were to observation. So I guess, to your question, no, they almost certainly didn't do that (it's not a metaphysical impossibility, but the prior likelihood on it has to be approximately zero).

WendyDarling wrote:Can you point me to a legitimate study or two where climate scientists have gathered their data from the actual current weather and CO2 emissions compared it with the actual past climate readings from 50 years ago or so then said it was due largely to human activity and not natural phenomenon, not a google search study evidence that your giving me that doesn't confirm anything but that a particular word appeared in the study.

So, the study I think you're asking for is this study, in which they compared prominent climate models from the past 50 years to observed climate changes. This study isn't the study we were discussing earlier -- which, to be clear, did not 1) use google, nor 2) count hits for a search term.

WendyDarling wrote:Denialists are even saying that NOAA is cooking the books with their current temp records.

I'm not surprised by this, but it's a significant red flag. When a hypothesis predicts certain observations, and the best available data on those observations contradicts what the hypothesis predicts, the usual response is to reject the hypothesis. If instead we posit a global conspiracy involving tens of thousands of independent researchers and their mutually-independent parent institutions to reject the truth of the best available data, that is strong evidence that we are more wedded to our hypothesis than to the truth.

WendyDarling wrote:Also that the reason that global warming catch phrase fell by the wayside and it became about climate change instead is that the air temps were not showing an average 1 degree increase but actually .33% over the last 100 years but the ocean had an average 1 degree increase so global warming which referred to the air temps had to be changed to climate change since they couldn't prove the increased air temps.

My understanding is that the models predict that an increase in temperatures could trigger an ice age (over several thousand years), so global warming isn't really accurate. It's also not the case that the earth is warming constantly (winters are still colder than summers) or uniformly (changing weather patterns can decrease temperatures locally while temperatures rise globally). The concern is also bigger than warming, to include extreme weather, acidification, desertification, and ecosystem collapse (I'm less confident on the state of the science there, but that they are among the concerns justifies a change in language to encompass them).

WendyDarling wrote:Is CO2 bad? In what ways is CO2 bad? One study that proves that CO2 damages life on Earth would go along way. Got one?

'Bad' is value-laden. The question is, do human activities that increase the amount of CO2 and other pollutants in the atmosphere have an impact on global climate?

WendyDarling wrote:Temperatures have run in cycles throughout our history.

I believe this is true, but it doesn't end the inquiry. Even if we expect to be in a part of the cycle where temperatures are increasing (which I don't grant, because I have seen no evidence either way), if they are increasing faster than we would expect, or if their increase tracks the increase in human-produced pollutants in the atmosphere, we can still conclude that human activities is changing the climate from where it would be.

And the consensus of subject matter experts on these questions is that global temperatures are outpacing their expected values, and that we can connect that increase to human actions.
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi
 
Posts: 6084
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Re: Communitarianism...UN Agenda 21

Postby WendyDarling » Thu Feb 20, 2020 10:16 pm

So, the study I think you're asking for is this study, in which they compared prominent climate models from the past 50 years to observed climate changes. This study isn't the study we were discussing earlier -- which, to be clear, did not 1) use google, nor 2) count hits for a search term.


That was not a complete study, Carleas. Hey, what are you trying to pull by acting as though it was? Plus adding that you are certain that the researchers did not do what was recorded in the Wiki article as proof of climate change (their presto chango google searchers)does not prove your point. Wiki and their researchers prove my point though and here is the video I was looking for that explains it...enjoy.

I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 7505
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Communitarianism...UN Agenda 21

Postby Carleas » Thu Feb 20, 2020 11:56 pm

WendyDarling wrote:That was not a complete study, Carleas. Hey, what are you trying to pull by acting as though it was?

You mean because we only have the abstract so far? There is a study associated with this abstract, the abstract and the plain language description give an overview of what it did and what it found. We may only have the abstract, but it is the abstract for the study you are asking for.

WendyDarling wrote:Plus adding that you are certain that the researchers did not do what was recorded in the Wiki article as proof of climate change

The studies in the Wiki article we do have, and so we know that 1) they didn't use Google, and 2) they used search terms to find articles related to their question, and separately analyzed the titles and abstracts of those articles.

WendyDarling wrote:here is the video I was looking for that explains it

Sweet, a video by... Dr. John Robson, American History PhD. Nothing says "climate expert" like a PhD in American History.

Here is the transcript, which links to all the studies we're already discussing, so, aside from being a terrible source in itself, it also doesn't advance the conversation we were already having before you started spamming youtube videos instead of replying to my points.

Besides which, the video appears to concede the point:
Most experts agree on the basics, namely that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and probably causes some warming and that humans have some impact on climate probably including some warming.

Again, your own source appears to reject your claim that "less than 1% of scientists say that climate change is caused by human contributions."
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi
 
Posts: 6084
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Re: Communitarianism...UN Agenda 21

Postby Carleas » Fri Feb 21, 2020 4:29 am

Scihub has the study through one of their proxies, scihub.zone

It is close to my limit of understanding, but I note a few things relevant to our conversation:
  • They use five different observational data sets, from both government (including NOAA) and research universities.
  • Models generally agree with observations.
  • Models perform even better when adjusted for observed human-generated "forcings", i.e. the pollutants that were actually released (somehow excluding volcanoes, because the models didn't account for them; not sure how this was done).
  • Controlling for forcings was done by looking at a model's ratio of change in temperature versus change in forcings, and comparing that to observations. Seems a bit blunt to me, but the models did better by that metric.
  • Models tended to overestimate forcings. I'd say that is very very weak evidence that the environmental movement had a positive impact.
Though I think this supports my position, it doesn't seem like the best study that could be done on this. It may also be that I'm not a climate scientist. But it feels preliminary and underdeveloped (though to be fair the version I found looks like an early version and is missing the supplemental materials). I would have liked more discussion about the justification for how they controlled for changing in the observed forcings. I also think something is lost in reducing the conclusion to a final 'model skill' score, instead of showing how the models performed against the differing observed data sets, or at least some discussion of how they were combined (seems like some of that would be in the supplemental materials that aren't included here).

Still, it is a reasonable attempt to answer an important question, and barring something better it's worth including here.
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi
 
Posts: 6084
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Re: Communitarianism...UN Agenda 21

Postby WendyDarling » Sun Feb 23, 2020 6:09 pm

Carleas wrote
The studies in the Wiki article we do have, and so we know that 1) they didn't use Google, and 2) they used search terms to find articles related to their question, and separately analyzed the titles and abstracts of those articles.


I disagree. What was their question again? Was it "does global warming appear in the text?" What does the appearance of a few words in a text prove? Where was the section that explained how the researchers analyzed the texts?

You need to come up with a better study, one that shows humans are predominantly responsible for climate change to our detriment. You have money. Pay for some studies that have past and present temperature records compared and related to how it's not a natural occurrence but a man-made danger. Shit, I'd be happily shocked if you could come up with one.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 7505
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Communitarianism...UN Agenda 21

Postby Carleas » Mon Feb 24, 2020 3:23 pm

WendyDarling wrote:You need to come up with a better study

You need to answer this question first:
Carleas wrote:Why do you trust [any sound bite that supports you current belief] more than the dozen surveys of climate scientists and reviews of climate science literature, written by different people, exploring the question using different methods, published by different journals in different countries, and all pointing to a strong consensus?

You don't have a consistent standard for what counts as evidence, and so you apply a very strict standard to evidence that weighs against what you believe, and a very loose standard to evidence that weighs in favor of it. That's a bad way of finding truth.

There are 150 citations backing up the claims in the Wiki article, and you've rejected them out of hand in favor of an online petition and some youtube videos.
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi
 
Posts: 6084
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Previous

Return to Society, Government, and Economics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot]

cron