CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13495

Warnings: (20%)
PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2016 3:27 pm
 


BartSimpson wrote:

And since you don't seem to understand the difference between climate and weather here's that deplorable denier Neil deGrasse Tyson to explain it for you:


That's the same clip that's in my earlier post


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13495

Warnings: (20%)
PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2016 3:37 pm
 


Freakinoldguy wrote:



To quote people on this website.

"That's just weather" But, here's the question. Given that the accuracy of the weather forecast declines with each passing day wouldn't it follow that a climate model based on decades or centuries would have an accuracy decline that's even more pronounced?


Um no as the video posted by me and Bart describes it is easier to know the larger trend than the short term trend. Here's another example: your insurance company knows with a fair degree of certainty how many claims it will pay next year because it knows the trends and statistics. But it has no idea exactly who those people will be or what exact date each of them. will have a claim. For example they know with a fair degree of certainty that x number of people in a certain demographic will die next year, give or take. They don't know the exact number down to the last person, or the names and dates of each person about to die but they know the big picture within a reasonable margin of error based on statistics.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Calgary Flames
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 27478
PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2016 3:51 pm
 


If the American military says it's a real phenomenon and that they're adjusting their plans, policies, procurements, and logistics for it then it's real. Slough off all the scientists as much as you want but the militaries are not fucking around when they do these things. And, NO, it is not some kind of profit-driven procurement scam based around a lie. They're soldiers, and the vast majority of them represent the last bastion of genuine honour in the American system. They're not a cluster of bought-off and paid-for politicians that reflexively lie about everything.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 22795
PostPosted: Sun Jan 01, 2017 12:20 am
 


Which? You mean like this?

"Obama declines to bomb an ISIS convoy because burning trucks will boost CO2 emissions ... Australia's defence wallahs fret about rising seas and drowning air bases ... alarmist ratbaggery distorts strategy and budgets. Military effectiveness has a new enemy: the climate-scam crowd."

Quote:
What happens when the military gets climate-minded played out in Syria a year ago. Russian President Vladimir Putin was annoyed at Turkey shooting down a Russian SU-24 bomber. So he blew the whistle on America’s reluctance to attack Syrian ISIS road tankers carting oil into Turkey. Those black-market oil sales generate the main funding for ISIS.[1]

Showing Russian reconnaissance footage, Putin spoke of “vehicles, carrying oil, lined up in a chain going beyond the horizon…a living oil pipe day and night.” US reporters wondered why the Obama administration hadn’t ordered US planes to blow up the “living oil pipe”. The public explanation from former Deputy CIA Director Michael Morell was that Obama did not want “to create environmental damage” or wreck infrastructure that Syrians would need in peace-time.

In an Obama version of shock and awe, A-10s Warthog ground-attack planes and Spectre gunships did start attacking the tankers, but only after leaflet drops to give the ISIS tanker drivers a considerate 45 minutes to “get out of your trucks now and run away from them.”


It's never been about the Military. It's always been about what the Obama political regime wants.

Quote:
Concern about CO2 emissions from exploding ISIS oil tankers is just one facet of Obama’s generalship. Since 2009 he has been issuing progressively-tougher Executive Orders to government agencies, including Defence, demanding that global warming issues be raised to top-priority status. Obama has several times publicly declared climate change to be an equal or greater threat than terrorism, and the Obama/Kerry team recently moved climate change talks from the Oval Office to the “Situation Room,” for military/security discussion of active threats to the US.

Dakota Wood, a retired Marine Corps officer and U.S. Central Command planner, says the Pentagon is introducing climate change, right down to military tactics, techniques and procedures level.

China’s military doctrine is less convoluted: “China’s armed forces uphold combat effectiveness as the sole and fundamental standard and work to build themselves into a people’s military that can fight and win.” Putin, like his Chinese counterparts, has not afflicted the Russian military with climate provisos.

Another serious “threat to national security” posited by Obama is from politicians who deny that various extreme weather events are demonstrations of climate change. Whatever dissent existed among the top US brass about the Obama campaign went mainly unspoken, while more ambitious officers competed publicly to burnish their climate credentials. But in mid-2015, General Martin Dempsey, the current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made his disgust clear by issuing a 14-page policy statement on military doctrine that contains not one mention of climate change.


Sounds like that's all going to end in a few weeks. So then what will your point be?

Quote:
Trump’s eagerness to drain Obama’s military swamp is evident from his 74 questions to the Department of Energy. He wants to identify all programs tainted by Obama’s junk science, along with the programs’ bureaucratic champions. The specificity of the questions is impressive, and designed to trump any civil-service obfuscation and passive resistance. The Brits take a perverse pride in Yes, Minister bureaucrats who run rings around their politicians. Trump and his realpolitik appointees intend to (and know how to) beat the bureaucrats.


http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-p ... tial-plan/


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Calgary Flames
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 27478
PostPosted: Sun Jan 01, 2017 12:37 am
 


I have no time for the wasteland right now. Already got one of my own anyway.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13495

Warnings: (20%)
PostPosted: Sun Jan 01, 2017 9:51 am
 


Quote:
Dilbert creator Scott Adams issues bad-faith ‘climate challenge’
Too bad climate science won’t actually change his mind
By Angela Chen on December 29, 2016 12:27 pm
TWEET SHARE SHARE

Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images

Yesterday, Dilbert creator Scott Adams issued a challenge to scientists with all the arrogance of someone who believes the main trait Hillary supporters have in common is being bullies:


Adams was once known mostly for creating a comic strip about working in a cubicle, but for the last few years has mostly been known for having aged into the hated boss character from his own strip. (A quick overview: he endorsed Donald Trump, then changed his endorsement to Clinton out of fear her supporters might murder him, then personally vowed to murder Trump if he became too Hitler-ish and... the list goes on.)

Regarding climate change, you’d think that global cooperation to pass the Paris accords, “catastrophic” warnings about Arctic sea ice levels and UN reports that even our best efforts are not enough might be enough to convince Adams. But you’d be wrong.

In a longer version of the challenge posted to his blog, Adams writes that he wants to find a scientist who believes that climate models do a good job of predicting the future, and not just CO2 measurements or greenhouse gas emissions. This matters because, as he states:


Your scientist will fight like a cornered animal to conflate the credibility of the measurements and the basic science of CO2 with the credibility of the projection models. Don’t let that happen. Make your scientist tell you that complicated multi-variable projections models that span years are credible. Or not.
In other words, he’s concerned with complex models with a lot of variables. He says the models cannot correctly predict the future and how much the temperature will rise, even if the input measurements and basic CO2 science is correct.

First, it should go without saying that there are many scientists who believe climate models are credible and that global warming is a threat. (For a good explanation on the reliability of these models, check out Dana Nucittelli’s post at Skeptical Science.)

But the other important thing to keep in mind is that this is simply not a good-faith challenge from Adams. As climate scientist Tamsin Edwards notes, models are never perfect. But if you pick the least wrong one, they are important tools that can’t be ignored.

If you’re a climate change denier, your best strategy is to pick on the models and get technical with details because after all, of course no model can get everything right all of the time. At that point, it’d be clairvoyance, not predictive modeling. It’s like if you predicted eight out of 10 things correctly, and then someone says that since you got one wrong, your entire method was trash.

Picking on the models suggests that Adams isn’t looking to be convinced, he’s just trying to bait the scientific establishment. People aren’t going to take the time to seriously answer your question if they suspect doing so will be a waste of time. Some people are tweeting explanations of climate change at Adams, but none of that is working, of course. Adams just keeps saying some variation of this:

28 Dec
Earthman @E4RTHM4N
@ScottAdamsSays Free course on it: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMwTEo ... g9hXkbwGvw

Scott Adams @ScottAdamsSays
@E4RTHM4N How could I trust it?
11:55 AM - 28 Dec 2016
Retweets 10 10 likes

It’s important for scientists and people with questions about climate change to have good-faith discussions — it’s probably the only way to lay rest to doubts about science. Plenty of scientists seem to be up for it. But of course, the qualifier here is “good faith.” If you won’t trust anything presented to you, why issue a challenge in the first place?


https://www.google.ca/amp/www.theverge. ... ent=safari


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 28525
PostPosted: Sun Jan 01, 2017 10:46 am
 


Why worry about climate change?

In about 7,5 billion years, the most probable fate of the planet will be the absorption by the Sun, after the star has entered the red giant phase and expanded to cross the planet's current orbit.

But even before that, during the next four billion years, the luminosity of the Sun will steadily increase, resulting in a rise in the solar radiation reaching the Earth. This will result in a higher rate of weathering of silicate minerals, which will cause a decrease in the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In about 600 million years from now, the level of CO2 will fall below the level needed to sustain C3 carbon fixation photosynthesis used by trees. Some plants use the C4 carbon fixation method, allowing them to persist at CO2 concentrations as low as 10 parts per million. However, the long-term trend is for plant life to die off altogether. The extinction of plants will be the demise of almost all animal life, since plants are the base of the food chain on Earth.

So you see, our biggest problem will be a decrease in CO2, not an increase.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 22795
PostPosted: Sun Jan 01, 2017 11:47 am
 


Quote:
Climate models are the core of the climate scare, but even the scientists who produce them know their predictive powers are weak. The scientists bundle model output up into an ensemble on the assumption that this will help cancel individual errors, but in doing so they make a very shaky assumption that errors in individual models are independent from each other, and that an averaging process will therefore tend to cancel them out. If the models all share underlying systemic errors, such as shared mistakes in their basic assumptions, bundling the models into an ensemble will do nothing to improve accuracy.

The following presentation by Pat Frank details some of the devastating predictive weaknesses of climate models, especially their poor statistical management of uncertainty.


https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/29/ ... challenge/



Image


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 38 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.