Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience. - Part 1

[Wild Cobra]

Again, point to specific errors within the modelling. We have posted and discussed the ocean models extensively. WC claimed they did not consider solubility states which was wrong.

You only showed seasonal study material. I still don't think they considered the larger variation over time. There was one study someplace that supported Manny's 10 ppm, but that was one study. Does the whole AGW idea hinge on one study for natural ocean sourcing levels?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You only showed seasonal study material. I still don't think they considered the larger variation over time. There was one study someplace that supported Manny's 10 ppm, but that was one study. Does the whole AGW idea hinge on one study for natural ocean sourcing levels?

I showed you how they accounted for varying temperatures as per the season ie over a range of conditions. They applied that formula over years.

You completely miss the point. Essentially what you are doing is sampling two points over some arbitrary time period in terms of decades. In contrast, that particular paper was advocating taking samples for each season ie 4 times a year. Its how you analyze a periodic system.

This in no way indicates that the relative mins and maxes are static. it just means that when they talk about decades they are doing 40 samples per decade.

I do not expect you to understand this. You after all have admitted to having a learning disability. OTOH, anyone else reading this, this is why WC has no clue what he is talking about.

The models obviously indicate that over time the temperature goes up that why its called global WARMING.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

As for Poptech

You can claim that you get me to respond in certain ways yet you offer no specifics.

By contrast, I got you to fill out a psychological survey that you later were so ashamed of that you edited 3 weeks later and have lied about it ever since.

I also feel that my vending machine analogy is apt. Just as someone can hit the coke button and get a can, anyone can just bring up one of the headers of your database and out comes the canned responses.

These are two specific examples of me doing just that. You can pull the "I know you are but what am I" routine but without specific examples it rings hollow.

Further, in your canned listings on pot one thing that I noticed in the headers in a lot of the word 'maybe.' That automatically enters into a level of probability. This goes back to what I am talking about regarding your aspergers. You do not understand degree.

I smoke pot so therefor in your limited brain that means all of that becomes abolutely true. This is a trend that becomes very apparent very quickly when dealing with you. At no point do you point to specific delusions other than your lying about filling out the survey admitting to aspergers and at no point do you point to specifics of memory loss.

Now this is not to say that I even concede those points as to the effects of pot. Quite the contrary but arguing with you is pointless but instead it is to illustrate to anyone else exactly how your mental illness limits your ability to understand uncertainties.

Next as to your posturing on being a computer analyst. That says nothing. You could work at the help desk for all we know. As to specifics that I work with, I work with VLSI, digital design, signal processing, controls, and some mechanics. If you know how to bit fiddle and modulate signals then great. If all you are is somebody with a Microsofy certification then that is something completely different. Seeing how your fanboism with Microsoft works I imagine you can guess what my estimation is.

Further, no one is arguing that legitimate scientists are skeptics. Its actually good that is the case in a peer review system. Of course bandwagoning is a fallacy. OTOH, when uncertainty exists and the overwhelming consensus is in one way and you yourself are not an expert then that is something else completely. Deep down its obvious that you understand this otherwise your wouldn't put such an emphasis on the number of articles in your database.

Finally, as to your credibility there are a couple of topics.

First, you lie. That is clear from your actions regarding your aspergers admission. If you don't like something you obviously have no compunction about lying about it. You also are pathological about it because you will go back and edit posts to cover your trail. It was an interesting case study of your pathology when I would point them out to you and you would immediately edit.

Second you are deceptive beyond just lying. Omission may not be a lie but it certainly leads people astray. A clear example is pulling 5 words from a study specific to lag but completely ignore the context of said lag and solar cycles and how while the increase solar exposure explains the release of CO2 it did not explain all of the arming and linked the CO2 increase to a feedback loop. You claim that it s a link to a specific argument but its obviously disingenuous. After all the study was a refutation to the argument. Another example would be your manipulation of ranges on graphs to make the anomalies difficult to see. You are pathological in that you never even acknowledge contrary logic, evidence or opinions. that defines bias.

Lastly, there is your disorder itself. You are mentally ill and you clearly display antisocial behavior. Further, your disorder limits your ability to empathize or even consider the thoughts of others. One only needs to look at your claims of irreffutability and your canned responses to just about everything to see the truth of that.

Now go ahead and do a line by line. I know its pointless to argue with someone with your mental illness so I am not going to waste my time. My intended audience is everyone else.

[Poptech]

You didn't get me to fill anything out I did not want to fill out. I wanted to see how easy it was to change your sociopath ranting by injecting something else into the mix, it was like childs play. Just like there is nothing online about me personally that I want anyone to know that I did not plant. Once I saw the editing ability here, I could have all sorts of fun with you. Potheads like you are the dumbest human beings and easily manipulated. Don't you get why everyone is laughing at you and not with you? Only other drug addicts support you because they feel like they are defending themselves not because they really like you. The rest of society thinks you are a waste, an evolutionary mistake. I laugh every time you post, I mean really laugh.

I've never even tried illegals drugs because I do not have a weak mind like you. I am not a drug addict like you. I do not have a brain damaged by pot like you.

Your mental limitations make you unable to understand what a canned response is. I am not cutting and pasting my responses. This is simply a lame excuse for your memory loss due to your drug addiction. My responses simply triggers what you could not remember when you posted the same debunked nonsense again.

Your denial of how your drug addiction has ruined your brain is evident by your inability to recognize how bad it has become. I recognized it almost immediately with your irrational and incoherent behavior. Drug addicts like you are so easy to pick out because you are so dumb. Heavier users don't even try to defend it but instead rationalize or deny it like you do. They also attack the ones that expose it, like myself. You convinced yourself that it has not damaged your brain and you are still intelligent but you're not. You are a failure.

[SnakeBoy]

Further, in your canned listings on pot one thing that I noticed in the headers in a lot of the word 'maybe.'

Wait, are you saying you are skeptical of the science.

[ElNono]

First, you lie. That is clear from your actions regarding your aspergers admission. If you don't like something you obviously have no compunction about lying about it. You also are pathological about it because you will go back and edit posts to cover your trail. It was an interesting case study of your pathology when I would point them out to you and you would immediately edit.

This isn't news, tbh

[ElNono]

why do computer illiterates always discuss the topic they are illiterate on? Faster computing power does not make something that is not fully understood anymore accurate. Where did you learn this? Skeptical Science?

Uh? This makes no sense. There's plenty of examples where faster computing power does result in more accurate/previously not possible research even if we don't fully understand how it all works. Sequencing complex DNA comes mind.

You call yourself a computer analyst? lol

[Wild Cobra]

I showed you how they accounted for varying temperatures as per the season ie over a range of conditions. They applied that formula over years.

You completely miss the point. Essentially what you are doing is sampling two points over some arbitrary time period in terms of decades. In contrast, that particular paper was advocating taking samples for each season ie 4 times a year. Its how you analyze a periodic system.

This in no way indicates that the relative mins and maxes are static. it just means that when they talk about decades they are doing 40 samples per decade.

I do not expect you to understand this. You after all have admitted to having a learning disability. OTOH, anyone else reading this, this is why WC has no clue what he is talking about.

The models obviously indicate that over time the temperature goes up that why its called global WARMING.

You are wrong. I explained why you are wrong, and you still don't understand. I see no point in trying to inform you any longer as long as you refuse to acknowledge the truth.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You are wrong. I explained why you are wrong, and you still don't understand. I see no point in trying to inform you any longer as long as you refuse to acknowledge the truth.

Your explanation was that it only analyzed seasonal changes and not over a longer period of time.

You only showed seasonal study material. I still don't think they considered the larger variation over time.

I addressed that specifically. Bold for emphasis.

I showed you how they accounted for varying temperatures as per the season ie over a range of conditions. They applied that formula over years.

You completely miss the point. Essentially what you are doing is sampling two points over some arbitrary time period in terms of decades. In contrast, that particular paper was advocating taking samples for each season ie 4 times a year. Its how you analyze a periodic system.

This in no way indicates that the relative mins and maxes are static. it just means that when they talk about decades they are doing 40 samples per decade.

You are going to have to try harder than that.

[Wild Cobra]

Your explanation was that it only analyzed seasonal changes and not over a longer period of time.

I said much more than that.

I addressed that specifically.

Of which didn't matter in regards to my other points.

You are going to have to try harder than that.

No, to continue to expect a different response from you would have people wondering if I am insane. After all, some say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over, and expecting a different result. I have come to realize that you are just a cyber bully. No matter what someone says who has earned a place of your list, you will never be anything but a childish bully.

[Poptech]

Uh? This makes no sense. There's plenty of examples where faster computing power does result in more accurate/previously not possible research even if we don't fully understand how it all works. Sequencing complex DNA comes mind.

What are you talking about? Computers are very useful tools for analyzing and working with data. They are completely useless for producing accurate results running simulations where the physical system being simulated is not fully understood. What does that have to do with DNA sequencing?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I said much more than that.

Of which didn't matter in regards to my other points.

No, to continue to expect a different response from you would have people wondering if I am insane. After all, some say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over, and expecting a different result. I have come to realize that you are just a cyber bully. No matter what someone says who has earned a place of your list, you will never be anything but a childish bully.

Quote the post you are claiming to talk about.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What are you talking about? Computers are very useful tools for analyzing and working with data. They are completely useless for producing accurate results running simulations where the physical system being simulated is not fully understood. What does that have to do with DNA sequencing?

Is a signal more accurately recreated at a higher or lower sample rate?

[Poptech]

Is a signal more accurately recreated at a higher or lower sample rate?

It cannot be accurately recreated in a computer simulation unless the physical processes of the simulation are 100% understood. Sampling rates does not change this fact. Running more samples, more often just gives your more results that are wrong, it does not increase accuracy as the simulation is broken by design.

[ElNono]

What are you talking about? Computers are very useful tools for analyzing and working with data. They are completely useless for producing accurate results running simulations where the physical system being simulated is not fully understood. What does that have to do with DNA sequencing?

Computing power actually enables you to understand/research such unknowns. We still don't understand how genomes interact as a whole, but without computing power we just simply couldn't even break it down into genes, and categorize each one individually along with start testing individual interactions.

40 years ago that problem was intractable for any moderately complex DNA form. You couldn't even begin research on it.

There's nothing "magical" about physics. It simply requires research and enough computing power to actually be able to research/model/catalog/simulate such interactions. Now you can tell me there's physics models where simulating them in realtime or better are practically intractable at this time (which coincidentally is where I'm at with climate models in general). That's a fact, but increased computing power is a key component of overcoming that.

[MannyIsGod]

The idea that you have to completely understand a system to make a model of it is absolutely stupid. There's a reason the saying says that every model is wrong.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The idea that you have to completely understand a system to make a model of it is absolutely stupid. There's a reason the saying says that every model is wrong.

Exactly.

There is a very clear example in engineering: aerodynamics. We have a very poor grasp as a whole of modeling turbulence. It like climate cycles is a nondeterministic system and cannot be modeled with any precision.

If what aspie was claiming was true then flight would be impossible much less supersonic flight and other extreme cases. We cannot model exactly what happens with turbulence and it obviously creates instability. How is that we are able to get planes to not fly apart?

The feedback mechanisms that we use to to stabilize planes are based on linear approximations. We do not understand what happens exactly but we know enough that we are able to fly at 4 times the speed of sound.

However, it should be noted that our understanding of turbulence like other nonperiodic systems has improved. For example, up until recently we could not explain how bees were able to get enough lift to fly. What they discovered in their modeling was that the wings created vortices (re: turbulence) that created low pressure areas that provided the needed lift.

The same is the case in transistors which are the backbone of modern electronics are are biased using linear approximations.

Then there is the processing of the empirical data that we have. The BEST analysis would not have been possible 3 years ago. Our ability to quantify our observations to be able to base our models off of has improved dramatically.

As you say, it's willful ignorance to say otherwise.

[DarrinS]

You guys are missing the obvious with this computer simulation business. It's that you don't have enough data (the initial conditions) to adequately model the behavior of a chaotic dynamic system. Say you want to model something relatively simple, like a car rolling over sideways down a cliff. Unless you have a LOT of data about the car, the terrain, and the exact initial conditions of the rollover, you won't be able to predict its exact trajectory.

[DarrinS]

The BEST analysis would not have been possible 3 years ago

laughable

[MannyIsGod]

We have more than enough data for climate models. We have more than enough data for weather models which rely on far more variables than climate models.

Just a stupid and ignorant argument to make.

[DarrinS]

We have more than enough data for climate models. We have more than enough data for weather models which rely on far more variables than climate models.

Just a stupid and ignorant argument to make.

So how far out can the best weather models predict? Why is that, Manny?

Thanks for helping me make my point. They are useful for short-term prediction -- don't get me wrong.

I disagree about adequate data for climate models. Spatial resolution sucks, except for sattelite data, but that hasn't been around for very long.

[MannyIsGod]

Spatial resolution of climate models isn't high so what does it matter if spatial resolution of data sucks? Weather models don't break down due to lack of data, Darrin. They break up because the variables - which I've stated are much higher due to spatial and temporal resolution than climate models - multiply with each ongoing hour and the error grows. Climate models look at how an overall system behaves in the long term and don't need to worry about short term variability. Weather models on the other hand, handle nothing but short term variability.

More importantly, as computing power has grown, weather models too have gotten far more accurate. Look at the record of hurricane forecasts in the past 5 years compared to that of 15 years ago and its a huge jump.

So, I'll state once again. This argument is born out of ignorance. You disagree with availability of data needed for climate models but just why does your opinion carry weight on the subject. I don't even mean that as an insult. If I went to the doctor and told him I disagreed with his diagnosis it sure as would not carry much weight to his patient, would it?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

laughable

It was a typo. I meant 30 years ie the discussion about 1988 models.

[Wild Cobra]

Quote the post you are claiming to talk about.

No.

I have no need to prove to you anything. I waste too much of my time with you as it is. If you missed it, too bad. I will probably repeat the facts again in some future point, and you will probably still not understand.

Ask me if I care anymore.

[Wild Cobra]

We have more than enough data for climate models. We have more than enough data for weather models which rely on far more variables than climate models.

Just a stupid and ignorant argument to make.

LOL...

Really now...

Just how good are 7 day forecasts?