Experts admit global warming predictions wrong

[Liar Loan]

?Donald Trump?s Mar-a-Lago Florida estate to be submerged by rising sea levels due to climate change

Donald Trump once said climate change was a ?hoax? invented by the Chinese but the phenomenon could be responsible for flooding his own Florida properties.

Environmental experts lined up to testify at a senate hearing on climate change this week, just four miles from Mr Trump?s Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, arguing that water could rise so high by the end of the century that the President?s own resorts would be damaged.?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ise-global-warming-winter-white-a7677596.html

This would be a prime example of something that is not scientific consensus.

Climate models are not science any more than a pipeline hedging model in the mortgage industry is science.  You can figure out which variables are the most predictive, and overlay a set of assumptions on those variables, but reality has a way of not cooperating with our human assumptions.

So to summarize, science is based on observable, repeatable results that are aggregated into datasets that can be studied.  The models built on top of those datasets are not science, but represent our best guesses about a whole host of variables, making them no more reliable than economic models or weather prediction models. 

They make for great discussion points and a way to test our theories, but they shouldn't be lumped into the same category as "scientific facts".

 

[eyephone]

?Donald Trump?s Mar-a-Lago Florida estate to be submerged by rising sea levels due to climate change

Donald Trump once said climate change was a ?hoax? invented by the Chinese but the phenomenon could be responsible for flooding his own Florida properties.

Environmental experts lined up to testify at a senate hearing on climate change this week, just four miles from Mr Trump?s Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, arguing that water could rise so high by the end of the century that the President?s own resorts would be damaged.?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ise-global-warming-winter-white-a7677596.html

This would be a prime example of something that is not scientific consensus.

Climate models are not science any more than a pipeline hedging model in the mortgage industry is science.  You can figure out which variables are the most predictive, and overlay a set of assumptions on those variables, but reality has a way of not cooperating with our human assumptions.

So to summarize, science is based on observable, repeatable results that are aggregated into datasets that can be studied.  The models built on top of those datasets are not science, but represent our best guesses about a whole host of variables, making them no more reliable than economic models or weather prediction models. 

They make for great discussion points and a way to test our theories, but they shouldn't be lumped into the same category as "scientific facts".

I don?t know (gray area)

 

[inv0ke-epipen]

?Donald Trump?s Mar-a-Lago Florida estate to be submerged by rising sea levels due to climate change

Donald Trump once said climate change was a ?hoax? invented by the Chinese but the phenomenon could be responsible for flooding his own Florida properties.

Environmental experts lined up to testify at a senate hearing on climate change this week, just four miles from Mr Trump?s Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, arguing that water could rise so high by the end of the century that the President?s own resorts would be damaged.?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ise-global-warming-winter-white-a7677596.html

This would be a prime example of something that is not scientific consensus.

Climate models are not science any more than a pipeline hedging model in the mortgage industry is science.  You can figure out which variables are the most predictive, and overlay a set of assumptions on those variables, but reality has a way of not cooperating with our human assumptions.

So to summarize, science is based on observable, repeatable results that are aggregated into datasets that can be studied.  The models built on top of those datasets are not science, but represent our best guesses about a whole host of variables, making them no more reliable than economic models or weather prediction models. 

They make for great discussion points and a way to test our theories, but they shouldn't be lumped into the same category as "scientific facts".

Sounds reasonable, but why should I believe you over many others who have spent years actually studying Climate models? Do you have a real understanding of climate models, or just enough knowledge of them to know they share some characteristics with financial models? This sounds like Dunning-Kruger affect at work.

I'm inclined to trust those with experience in their field over a separate, but potentially similar, field. I'm not sure I believe that climate models equate to financial models, or that your expertise in that area gives you authority to make that assertion.

I'm not a client scientist either, so don't believe what I say, look to the huge number of scientists and work they've done showing that the globe is warming, it's caused by CO2, and it could cause us significant trouble if we don't get in front of it.

My point is, we've gotten to where we are now by trusting scientific consensus and using its insights to better ourselves. It has been our sharpest tool, allowing us to carve out a seat of power over this world that has enriched and elevated us. Why make exceptions now? Why do you equate your limited knowledge of climate science as equal or superior to the body of work that lays the foundation of the current consensus?

EDIT: Fixed image that didn't work for dunning kruger graph

 

[eyephone]

How about this one?

?Trump Resort in Ireland Will Build Seawalls to Protect Against Climate Change

President Donald Trump will finally get the wall he's after. However, it won't be along the U.S.-Mexico border. An Irish council on Thursday granted approval for a wall to be built around part of Trump's golf course in Doonbeg, Ireland to protect it from water erosion, The New York Times reported.

In the first application, Trump cited "global warming and its effects," including rising sea levels and water erosion, as reasons for the wall, Politico reported, despite his statements calling global warming and climate change "a total hoax." Global warming was not listed as a reason in this application.?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.us...to-protect-against-climate-change?context=amp

My comment:
1. According to the article Trump mentioned global warming and its effects," including rising sea levels and water erosion, as reasons for the wall for the golf course in Ireland.
I guess he?s changed his mind?
2. Maybe he should think twice before buying or developing golf courses by the ocean.

 

[Liar Loan]

?Donald Trump?s Mar-a-Lago Florida estate to be submerged by rising sea levels due to climate change

Donald Trump once said climate change was a ?hoax? invented by the Chinese but the phenomenon could be responsible for flooding his own Florida properties.

Environmental experts lined up to testify at a senate hearing on climate change this week, just four miles from Mr Trump?s Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, arguing that water could rise so high by the end of the century that the President?s own resorts would be damaged.?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ise-global-warming-winter-white-a7677596.html

This would be a prime example of something that is not scientific consensus.

Climate models are not science any more than a pipeline hedging model in the mortgage industry is science.  You can figure out which variables are the most predictive, and overlay a set of assumptions on those variables, but reality has a way of not cooperating with our human assumptions.

So to summarize, science is based on observable, repeatable results that are aggregated into datasets that can be studied.  The models built on top of those datasets are not science, but represent our best guesses about a whole host of variables, making them no more reliable than economic models or weather prediction models. 

They make for great discussion points and a way to test our theories, but they shouldn't be lumped into the same category as "scientific facts".

Sounds reasonable, but why should I believe you over many others who have spent years actually studying Climate models? Do you have a real understanding of climate models, or just enough knowledge of them to know they share some characteristics with financial models? This sounds like Dunning-Kruger affect at work.

I'm inclined to trust those with experience in their field over a separate, but potentially similar, field. I'm not sure I believe that climate models equate to financial models, or that your expertise in that area gives you authority to make that assertion.

I'm not a client scientist either, so don't believe what I say, look to the huge number of scientists and work they've done showing that the globe is warming, it's caused by CO2, and it could cause us significant trouble if we don't get in front of it.

My point is, we've gotten to where we are now by trusting scientific consensus and using its insights to better ourselves. It has been our sharpest tool, allowing us to carve out a seat of power over this world that has enriched and elevated us. Why make exceptions now? Why do you equate your limited knowledge of climate science as equal or superior to the body of work that lays the foundation of the current consensus?

EDIT: Fixed image that didn't work for dunning kruger graph

It sounds like you agree with me that eyephone shouldn't be listened to.

 

[eyephone]

?Donald Trump?s Mar-a-Lago Florida estate to be submerged by rising sea levels due to climate change

Donald Trump once said climate change was a ?hoax? invented by the Chinese but the phenomenon could be responsible for flooding his own Florida properties.

Environmental experts lined up to testify at a senate hearing on climate change this week, just four miles from Mr Trump?s Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, arguing that water could rise so high by the end of the century that the President?s own resorts would be damaged.?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ise-global-warming-winter-white-a7677596.html

This would be a prime example of something that is not scientific consensus.

Climate models are not science any more than a pipeline hedging model in the mortgage industry is science.  You can figure out which variables are the most predictive, and overlay a set of assumptions on those variables, but reality has a way of not cooperating with our human assumptions.

So to summarize, science is based on observable, repeatable results that are aggregated into datasets that can be studied.  The models built on top of those datasets are not science, but represent our best guesses about a whole host of variables, making them no more reliable than economic models or weather prediction models. 

They make for great discussion points and a way to test our theories, but they shouldn't be lumped into the same category as "scientific facts".

Sounds reasonable, but why should I believe you over many others who have spent years actually studying Climate models? Do you have a real understanding of climate models, or just enough knowledge of them to know they share some characteristics with financial models? This sounds like Dunning-Kruger affect at work.

I'm inclined to trust those with experience in their field over a separate, but potentially similar, field. I'm not sure I believe that climate models equate to financial models, or that your expertise in that area gives you authority to make that assertion.

I'm not a client scientist either, so don't believe what I say, look to the huge number of scientists and work they've done showing that the globe is warming, it's caused by CO2, and it could cause us significant trouble if we don't get in front of it.

My point is, we've gotten to where we are now by trusting scientific consensus and using its insights to better ourselves. It has been our sharpest tool, allowing us to carve out a seat of power over this world that has enriched and elevated us. Why make exceptions now? Why do you equate your limited knowledge of climate science as equal or superior to the body of work that lays the foundation of the current consensus?

EDIT: Fixed image that didn't work for dunning kruger graph

It sounds like you agree with me that eyephone shouldn't be listened to.

Yeah don?t listen to me. TRUMP put global warming or something similar to that on his application to build the wall for his golf course in Ireland..

 

[Liar Loan]

How about this one?

?Trump Resort in Ireland Will Build Seawalls to Protect Against Climate Change

President Donald Trump will finally get the wall he's after. However, it won't be along the U.S.-Mexico border. An Irish council on Thursday granted approval for a wall to be built around part of Trump's golf course in Doonbeg, Ireland to protect it from water erosion, The New York Times reported.

In the first application, Trump cited "global warming and its effects," including rising sea levels and water erosion, as reasons for the wall, Politico reported, despite his statements calling global warming and climate change "a total hoax." Global warming was not listed as a reason in this application.?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.us...to-protect-against-climate-change?context=amp

My comment:
1. According to the article Trump mentioned global warming and its effects," including rising sea levels and water erosion, as reasons for the wall for the golf course in Ireland.
I guess he?s changed his mind?
2. Maybe he should think twice before buying or developing golf courses by the ocean.

Trump was telling the local officials what they wanted to hear, using the buzzwords he knew would maximize his chances of permit approval.

This may surprise you but water erosion is something that has existed since the beginning of time.  It's not a new phenomenon.

 

[Liar Loan]

Yeah don?t listen to me. TRUMP put global warming or something similar to that on his application to build the wall for his golf course in Ireland..

Your beef is with inv0ke-epipen.  He's the one that wrote that dismissive missive against you.

 

[eyephone]

How about this one?

?Trump Resort in Ireland Will Build Seawalls to Protect Against Climate Change

President Donald Trump will finally get the wall he's after. However, it won't be along the U.S.-Mexico border. An Irish council on Thursday granted approval for a wall to be built around part of Trump's golf course in Doonbeg, Ireland to protect it from water erosion, The New York Times reported.

In the first application, Trump cited "global warming and its effects," including rising sea levels and water erosion, as reasons for the wall, Politico reported, despite his statements calling global warming and climate change "a total hoax." Global warming was not listed as a reason in this application.?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.us...to-protect-against-climate-change?context=amp

My comment:
1. According to the article Trump mentioned global warming and its effects," including rising sea levels and water erosion, as reasons for the wall for the golf course in Ireland.
I guess he?s changed his mind?
2. Maybe he should think twice before buying or developing golf courses by the ocean.

Trump was telling the local officials what they wanted to hear, using the buzzwords he knew would maximize his chances of permit approval.

This may surprise you but water erosion is something that has existed since the beginning of time.  It's not a new phenomenon.

I like that one. Tell them what they want to hear. Oh yeah

#minorleaguer

 

[Liar Loan]

Eyephone - Have you ever been to Ireland?

 

[inv0ke-epipen]

It sounds like you agree with me that eyephone shouldn't be listened to.

On climate science? Probably not, but he isn't making any assertions of his own that go against the scientific consensus.

Miami is probably the more interesting place to look at in regards to sea level riseshttp://www.businessinsider.com/miami-floods-sea-level-rise-solutions-2018-4

Though not as good of a headline as Trump's golf course sinking or whatever.

 

[Liar Loan]

It sounds like you agree with me that eyephone shouldn't be listened to.

On climate science? Probably not, but he isn't making any assertions of his own that go against the scientific consensus.

Yeah, but then again neither am I.

 

[inv0ke-epipen]

It sounds like you agree with me that eyephone shouldn't be listened to.

On climate science? Probably not, but he isn't making any assertions of his own that go against the scientific consensus.

Yeah, but then again neither am I.

So you would agree with this statement? : "Climate models have already predicted many of the phenomena for which we now have empirical evidence. Climate models form a reliable guide to potential climate change."

 

[Liar Loan]

It sounds like you agree with me that eyephone shouldn't be listened to.

On climate science? Probably not, but he isn't making any assertions of his own that go against the scientific consensus.

Yeah, but then again neither am I.

So you would agree with this statement? : "Climate models have already predicted many of the phenomena for which we now have empirical evidence. Climate models form a reliable guide to potential climate change."

I don't have sufficient data to either agree or disagree with either of those statements.

 

[inv0ke-epipen]

It sounds like you agree with me that eyephone shouldn't be listened to.

On climate science? Probably not, but he isn't making any assertions of his own that go against the scientific consensus.

Yeah, but then again neither am I.

So you would agree with this statement? : "Climate models have already predicted many of the phenomena for which we now have empirical evidence. Climate models form a reliable guide to potential climate change."

I don't have sufficient data to either agree or disagree with either of those statements.

The current scientific consensus is that we DO have sufficient data to support those statements. Which is what I'm going with, because like I stated, scientific consensus has proved to be our best tool over the past centuries.  Certainly not perfect, but damn good.

 

[Liar Loan]

It sounds like you agree with me that eyephone shouldn't be listened to.

On climate science? Probably not, but he isn't making any assertions of his own that go against the scientific consensus.

Yeah, but then again neither am I.

So you would agree with this statement? : "Climate models have already predicted many of the phenomena for which we now have empirical evidence. Climate models form a reliable guide to potential climate change."

I don't have sufficient data to either agree or disagree with either of those statements.

The current scientific consensus is that we DO have sufficient data to support those statements. Which is what I'm going with, because like I stated, scientific consensus has proved to be our best tool over the past centuries.  Certainly not perfect, but damn good.

I'm in agreement with the scientific consensus, just not the accuracy of computer simulated models.  For one thing, the climate models themselves don't agree with each other.  Secondly, some of them deviate quite a bit from the actual temperature record.  Thirdly, they have been shown to have, in aggregate, a "warming bias" when compared to the actual temperature record.  These are just facts.

So your statements from two posts ago are correct insofar as the models have predicted warming and then warming has occurred, but I disagree that they are reliable enough to guide future policy that would result in radical changes to our way of life.  If the scientific consensus is proposing changes that will lead to increased poverty and human suffering, or mass sterilizations, or punishing citizens for having children, or other radical ideas that seem to be bandied about and casually accepted as necessary by many in the scientific community, I'm not onboard with that.

 

[inv0ke-epipen]

It sounds like you agree with me that eyephone shouldn't be listened to.

On climate science? Probably not, but he isn't making any assertions of his own that go against the scientific consensus.

Yeah, but then again neither am I.

So you would agree with this statement? : "Climate models have already predicted many of the phenomena for which we now have empirical evidence. Climate models form a reliable guide to potential climate change."

I don't have sufficient data to either agree or disagree with either of those statements.

The current scientific consensus is that we DO have sufficient data to support those statements. Which is what I'm going with, because like I stated, scientific consensus has proved to be our best tool over the past centuries.  Certainly not perfect, but damn good.

I'm in agreement with the scientific consensus, just not the accuracy of computer simulated models.  For one thing, the climate models themselves don't agree with each other.  Secondly, some of them deviate quite a bit from the actual temperature record.  Thirdly, they have been shown to have, in aggregate, a "warming bias" when compared to the actual temperature record.  These are just facts.

That is incorrect according to most climate scientists.  Are you going off the popular John Christy chart for those facts?  It misrepresents the data in a number of ways.

So your statements from two posts ago are correct insofar as the models have predicted warming and then warming has occurred, but I disagree that they are a reliable enough to guide future policy that would result in radical changes to our way of life.  If the scientific consensus is proposing changes that will lead to increased poverty and human suffering, or mass sterilizations, or punishing citizens for having children, or other radical ideas that seem to be bandied about and casually accepted as necessary by many in the scientific community, I'm not onboard with that.

That is exactly where I think the debate should be, over if warming really mandates policy changes. There needs to be a better understanding of what the potential harm of these policy changes is in relation to the potential harm of global warming.

Ultimately, like most economists, I'm of the opinion creating a carbon tax to price the negative externality of warming and letting the market decide what measures to take in response to this price is the best and most fair route to lower emissions.

EDIT: Grammar

 

[inv0ke-epipen]

EDIT: accidental double post

Since this post is here, a couple follow ups.

The scientific consensus should be the input that drives our decision; we basically want to make sure we make decisions with good data. The scientific community is telling us the globe is warming and it will likely cause damage, we should be careful not to conflate that with people calling for sterilization or other such radical solutions. The scientific consensus isn't telling us what to do with the data, just what the data is and that we will cause damage. It is up to our government (and since this is a democracy, us) to decide if and how to deal with this information. Some scientists may be calling for radical measures, but again we need to be careful with conflating a scientist's opinion on methods to  mitigate warming with the scientific consensus that warming is happening.

My main point I want to convey across these posts is that we shouldn't let deserved mistrust of government transform into undeserved mistrust of the scientific community. By misrepresenting and distorting the data, and eroding trust in the scientific community, we weaken ourselves. We weaken ourselves not just on this issue, but every issue that requires good data to make a good decision. We can't afford to do that and also maintain our stance in the world with highly focused and increasingly powerful rivals like China to deal with.

 

[eyephone]

There are parts of Ireland that are not by the ocean.
My point is it seems like Trump is flip flopping on global warming.
As I previously stated, Trump said on the wall application the reason for a wall is due to global warming.

* this is not fake news, read the previous article I posted.

Eyephone - Have you ever been to Ireland?

 

[Liar Loan]

That is incorrect according to most climate scientists.  Are you going off the popular John Christy chart for those facts?  It misrepresents the data in a number of ways.

I'm not aware of John Christy's popular chart.  It must not be very popular.  My conclusions are based on looking at model projections individually and in aggregate, studying the data, and comparing them to the actual temperature records.

The source you linked to for that animated graphic is a blog with an agenda (Skeptical Science), not a dispassionate commentator.  For instance, the blog's founder conducted the very unscientific "survey" that concluded 97% of scientists are in agreement about man made global warming, a false conclusion that many of the scientists he lumped in to the statistic vehemently disagreed with.

He created that made up statistic to empower Democrat politicians, and the sheep that follow them, to bludgeon those of us that are capable of using our heads to think about the science for ourselves.  There's nothing scientific or consensus building about that.  He is a partisan hack masquerading as an authority on this subject.

Here's a statement by one of the scientists that he mischaracterized:

Cook et al. (2013) is based on a straw man argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission,? Scafetta responded. ?What my papers say is that the IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.?

?What it is observed right now is utter dishonesty by the IPCC advocates. ? They are gradually engaging into a metamorphosis process to save face. ? And in this way they will get the credit that they do not merit, and continue in defaming critics like me that actually demonstrated such a fact since 2005/2006,? Scafetta added.

Here's a quote from another:

Asked if Cook and colleagues accurately represented his paper, Shaviv responded, ?Nope... it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitivity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century [warming] should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1?C).?

?I couldn't write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don't have to be a genius to reach these conclusions from the paper," Shaviv added.

Here's another:

?I hope my scientific views and conclusions are clear to anyone that will spend time reading our papers. Cook et al. (2013) is not the study to read if you want to find out about what we say and conclude in our own scientific works,? Soon emphasized.

Not only that, but the author of Skeptical Science is not a climate scientist. 

You warned earlier on this thread against trusting those that don't work in the field of climate science to understand the complexities of it...  Hmm...  Yet here you are linking to a blog by just such an individual.

Perhaps you should reread the quotes I posted above from three actual climate scientists commenting about your non-climate scientist blogger.