[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Well models are actually the basis of science. So the far right calling science "bullshit." No surprise there.

That's just more BS.

The scientific method is the basis of actual science. It was around long before that GIGO (garbage in/garbage out), BS put together by nintendo nerd, Progs with their computer games. Science-y is not science.

The Bohr model of the atom, the Lotka-Volterra model of predator-prey interaction, the double-helix model of the DNA, the heliocentric model and on and on and on. The development an duse of models is and always has been central to science.

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

And if you care to place a bet, Bart, we'll see if you can back up your rhetoric. I'll lay $100 that, in Vancouver, the average temperature over the month in July 2014 will be warmer than the average temperature in December 2013.

I'll give you 2 to 1 odds.

I'll go you one further.

I'll wager $100 that July 2014 in Vancouver will be cooler than July 2013.

You may wager that it will be warmer.

And if the temperatures are +/- less than 1° C different then we both lose and will donate our respective $100 to CKA.

Is it a bet?

I'll take that as a dodge.

[N_Fiddledog]

Cut the crap. You know what I'm talking about. Predictive computer modeling is the problem with what they're choosing to call climate science these days, and is causing problems in other fields. Computer modeling has no proven predictive power. It's wrong more than it's right. As prophesy it's BS.

It doesn't look at the past very efficiently either. There is insufficient actual data available for the past on your graph. If that's modeled it's GIGO, bullshit.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Cut the crap. You know what I'm talking about. Predictive computer modeling is the problem with what they're choosing to call climate science these days, and is causing problems in other fields. Computer modeling has no proven predictive power. It's wrong more than it's right. As prophesy it's BS.

It doesn't look at the past very efficiently either. There is insufficient actual data available for the past on your graph. If that's modeled it's GIGO, bullshit.

It's not crap. Finite Element Analysis is a predictive computer model, for example, used extensively in the structural design of automobiles, and it has probably saved thousands of lives by effectively modelling the way the car will deform in an accident.

In my field, chemical engineering, we use models to design and size various units such as catalytic crackers, distillation towers, heat transfer, pipe sizing. the computer model calculates temperatures, pressures, reaction rates, pipe yield strnegths, etc etc etc. Stuff that all used to be done by hand (refineries predate computers), but is now modelled by computers.

If you are talking about Global Circulation Models in particular then they certainly do have issues. One is that they are trying to model systems that are both chaotic and complex, and the mathematics adn computing power available aren't good enough to keep up. Therefore the output is highly simplified. The other is that the output of the models is often for things years down the roads, so the feedback time to corect the models against reality is too long to be useful.

However the conclusion you've drawn--that the use of modelling in science is crap, is rather silly.

[martin14]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I'll take that as a dodge.

Why yes, yes you are dodging.

[Zipperfish]

martin14 martin14:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I'll take that as a dodge.

Why yes, yes you are dodging.

No, don't think I am.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

And if you care to place a bet, Bart, we'll see if you can back up your rhetoric. I'll lay $100 that, in Vancouver, the average temperature over the month in July 2014 will be warmer than the average temperature in December 2013.

I'll give you 2 to 1 odds.

I'll go you one further.

I'll wager $100 that July 2014 in Vancouver will be cooler than July 2013.

You may wager that it will be warmer.

And if the temperatures are +/- less than 1° C different then we both lose and will donate our respective $100 to CKA.

Is it a bet?

I'll take that as a dodge.

A dodge? Hell, brother, that's meeting you head-on.

You mentioned money and I'm putting my money where my mouth is. That's not a dodge at all. To the contrary, the phrase is...

$1:

Money talks, bull$hit walks.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

However the conclusion you've drawn--that the use of modelling in science is crap, is rather silly.

Hyperbole to make a point. Modeling can be a useful tool, but predictive computer modeling can't be trusted, and it's proven inefficient at evaluating the past.

It was one of the causes of the 2008 financial crisis.

$1:

As financial assets became more and more complex, and harder and harder to value, investors were reassured by the fact that both the international bond rating agencies and bank regulators, who came to rely on them, accepted as valid some complex mathematical models which theoretically showed the risks were much smaller than they actually proved to be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_financial_crisis

Specifically with climate, we can talk specifically about the IPPC climate models of the last report which we were told informed us a lot of things were going to happen which reality later told us didn't happen. The climate scare was based on those models and those ones were BS. No hyperbole intended there.

The predictions of the modeling doomsayers over the years did not happen. Both poles did not melt. When the Antarctic refused to melt, and grew colder instead, modelers simply pulled another model out their butts, and said they meant only one pole would warm. Many stories of modeling prediction successes have similar roots. The modeled warming fingerprint that was supposed to appear over the tropics was not there by known means of judging such temperature at the time. The modelers simply invented a new way temperature is taken (it's bogus) and said Abracadra, the fingerprint is now there. There has been no statistical warming in 16 years. The modelers just say, 'we said that was going to happen all along'. They didn't though.

[Zipperfish]

[quote="BartSimpson]

A dodge? Hell, brother, that's meeting you head-on.

You mentioned money and I'm putting my money where my mouth is. That's not a dodge at all. To the contrary, the phrase is...

[/quote]

meeting it head-on would be taking the bet.

No, you stated that the weather after seven days couldn't be predicted. I offered a wager--at 2-1 odds--based on my belief that I can predict the weather more than 7 days in advance. You--wisely--didn't tak ethe bet, but in the process tacitly admitted that the weather--at least aggregately--can be predicted more than 7 days out.

This summer was an unusually warm July for Vancouver, and next summer won't likely be as warm. As a matter of fact, the fact that you offer me a bet knowing that just proves you're being disingenuous about "not being able to predict the weather more than 7 days out."

And that's the thing with deniers. They make ridiculous claims and when completely backed into a corner finally concede that theya re wrong, but it's all a waste of time because come the next time around they're right back to their original position.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Hyperbole to make a point. Modeling can be a useful tool, but predictive computer modeling can't be trusted, and it's proven inefficient at evaluating the past.

Hyperbole? A page ago you said:

Fiddlestix Fiddlestix:

the word "model", which is just a Prog word meaning bullshit.

See my comment above to Bart about arguing with deniers.

$1:

As financial assets became more and more complex, and harder and harder to value, investors were reassured by the fact that both the international bond rating agencies and bank regulators, who came to rely on them, accepted as valid some complex mathematical models which theoretically showed the risks were much smaller than they actually proved to be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_financial_crisis

$1:

Specifically with climate, we can talk specifically about the IPPC climate models of the last report which we were told informed us a lot of things were going to happen which reality later told us didn't happen. The climate scare was based on those models and those ones were BS. No hyperbole intended there.

The predictions of the modeling doomsayers over the years did not happen. Both poles did not melt. When the Antarctic refused to melt, and grew colder instead, modelers simply pulled another model out their butts, and said they meant only one pole would warm. Many stories of modeling prediction successes have similar roots. The modeled warming fingerprint that was supposed to appear over the tropics was not there by known means of judging such temperature at the time. The modelers simply invented a new way temperature is taken (it's bogus) and said Abracadra, the fingerprint is now there. There has been no statistical warming in 16 years. The modelers just say, 'we said that was going to happen all along'. They didn't though.

Yes finanical models are quite poor. Frankly you may as well flip a coin. Weather models have improved significantly. We can now predict hurricans far more in advance than we used to. The hard part is predicting where they'll hit land, but that's getting better.

Climate models--GCMs--are probably better than finanicial models, but shouldn't be overly relied upon, in my estimation.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

No, you stated that the weather after seven days couldn't be predicted. I offered a wager--at 2-1 odds--based on my belief that I can predict the weather more than 7 days in advance. You--wisely--didn't tak ethe bet, but in the process tacitly admitted that the weather--at least aggregately--can be predicted more than 7 days out.

For God sakes Zip. You wanted to bet him that July would be hotter than December. He countered with a bet that wasn't even as kooky as yours.

Neither proved Models could predict weather or climate more than 7 days in advance. The difference was he didn't say they could. So which one of you is being silly again?

You are Zip. You've lost control. You're getting angry, and trying to defend an impossible proposition. It's making you look silly. Just as Bart claimed, models cannot accurately predict weather more than 7 days in advance (personally I'd say 3). You know they can't.

Oh...and now you want to argue about what hyperbole is. Yes Zip when I say "the word "model", which is just a Prog word meaning bullshit", it's an obvious bit of hyperbolic snark, in reply to your "far right" crack. You never have liked getting as good as you give, but unfortunately (for you) that's your problem.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

This summer was an unusually warm July for Vancouver, and next summer won't likely be as warm.

Then WTF are you going about if you don't think it'll be warmer next year?

I'd say we're in agreement on global warming if you think that next July in Vancouver will be cooler than it was last month.

[jj2424]

Too many idiots believing the BS the left wing media keeps posting day after day.

Send Al Gore and his money to rescue them.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

For God sakes Zip. You wanted to bet him that July would be hotter than December. He countered with a bet that wasn't even as kooky as yours.

$1:

He said weather couldn't be rpedicted after 7 days. Both December and July are more than 7 days away. The easy way out for Bart is to conceded that you can predict things about weather more thn 7 days out.

$1:

You are Zip. You've lost control. You're getting angry, and trying to defend an impossible proposition. It's making you look silly. Just as Bart claimed, models cannot accurately predict weather more than 7 days in advance (personally I'd say 3). You know they can't.

Oh...and now you want to argue about what hyperbole is. Yes Zip when I say "the word "model", which is just a Prog word meaning bullshit", it's an obvious bit of hyperbolic snark, in reply to your "far right" crack. You never have liked getting as good as you give, but unfortunately (for you) that's your problem.

I'm not getting angry at all. I should, becasue between you and Bart you know about Jack Squat about what you're talking about, and I have to constantly listen to you call me an idiot and a liar and a fake.

Like I said, the problem isn't that there's stupid people. The problem is that the stupid people don't know they're stupid.

[N_Fiddledog]

No Zip. It's you who doesn't know what he's talking about here, and never has on this issue. (Actually I think you do. You just believe you can BS your way out of it). We three have argued this point for years and although you have sharpened your line of patter with gobbledy gook you've put together over the years you'll always be left trying to explain the same in your face fact that contradicts you. Climate models have failed more spectacularly than they've ever succeeded. They are noticeably limited in predicting weather, just as Bart says, and they have failed in too many of their climate predictions to be taken seriously as prophets. Basic knowledge of the issue and common sense tells us this.

Climate models cannot work past, present, or future if the correct data is not fed into them.

The data necessary to make your graph work does not exist here. Therefore the model used to produce it cannot be judged as credible.

And that by the way is where the BS starts to surface with models. They do not work without proper data, but they are used in dodgy fields like climate science to replace data. They become nothing more than CGI representations of what the modeler would like the result to look like.