Again.
I provided a link to the video where he explains his experience with climate change models.
Climate Alarmist are Liars
- Thread starter 92TigerME
- Start date
Again.
I provided a link to the video where he explains his experience with climate change models.
What does 10^-2 mean?
We are not talking about probabilistic models. The climate models are deterministic and based on data that has large uncertainties. Thus, the overall uncertainty in the models must be questioned. Indeed. These models have a long track record of being wrong.
Last edited:
Well you are immediately wrong.
In a deterministic model, we use the physical considerations to predict a almost accurate outcome, whereas in a non-deterministic model we use those considerations to predict more of a probable (probability distribution) outcome.
They don't tell you it is going to rain exactly 3 inches on your house, they tell you the probability that it's going to rain between 8 and 10 pm in a given area.
Same with all meteorological models and climate models. They say warming will likely be between this and that, with x amount of certainty. Not all that different from polling or sampling. Are you sure you understand statistics, cause posting an image with no explanation doesn't help your point much.
ps. negative powers just makes stuff smaller, that's not even statistics, that's like grade school stuff.
You might be confused between weather and climate models. Probabilistic is fault tree analysis. It is used for predicting success and failure based on the probability of each success path.
I'm talking about error propagation in their deterministic models. Climate models are deterministic. The uncertainty in the input data make them useless.
Also. On carbon mass balance streams, the uncertainty errors are well beyond two sigma so they don't really understand causation. The models are based on the quantified carbon inputs that they believe come from man which have an uncertainty error of about 40%. Not to mention other carbon streams to and from the atmosphere.
Last edited:
Also since you claim to be the expert at probabilistic statistical analysis I was certain you would know that 10 to the minus two means once in a hundred years.
Where did I make this claim? I know many people at Clemson specifically that would put me to shame.
No they are not, this doesn't even make sense. In deterministic models, the output of the model is fully determined by the parameter values and the initial conditions.
This isn't plausible or even reasonable for climate models. Climate models are very similar to meteorological models.
Can you name a single deterministic climate model? One. Name one. Link one.
You said they are deterministic. You made the initial claim. Please link a single deterministic model.
In mathematics, computer science and physics, a deterministic system is a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system. A deterministic model will thus always produce the same output from a given starting condition or initial state.
Again, you are either ignorant or purposefully misleading.
A deterministic model uses inputs to calculate outputs over time. That doesn't mean that the inputs are not based on some random or other distribution. You could call it stochastic which might be more accurate. But not probabilistic. Most input data follows a random distribution if the nature is random. The problem with climate models is that there is a large uncertainty in the inputs which means that there could be large error propagation in the model and the output would be worthless. For example: What fraction of CO2 is contributed by man? +/- what uncertainty. That would be an input to the climate model. Another. How much radiative heat is absorbed by CO2 +/- what uncertainty. The more variables, the greater the overall uncertainty of the model will be over time. Small uncertainty errors translate into large errors over time.
Even the professor in the video I just posted says the same. Truth is, they have no idea from their climate models.
This is what you said.
This is where I believe you described probabilisitic models. We use them all the time to predict core damange in a nuclear plant. That's what triggered my response.
This is where I believe you described probabilisitic models. We use them all the time to predict core damange in a nuclear plant. That's what triggered my response.
None of this is wrong but for the assumption that we can't measure these things with relatively high levels of accuracy or that the outcome can still be useful in decision making despite an unfavorable R-squared value.
This thing?
I mean - it does seem like something someone from Alabama would drive but........
No. It's you making a ridiculous statements. Error propagation in a model can be huge making the results worthless. R squared indicates variance for two variables. These climate models are based on multiple parameters. The only way to validate them is to compare the results with historical trends.
I have experience with thermal hydraulic models that solve conservation equations for mass, momentum and energy for multicomponent, multi-phase compressible flow in multi-dimensional geometries used to compute the containment responses to loss of coolant accidents. We use accurate input correlations for heat and mass transfer. Not inaccurate. I can imagine climate models are similar because instead of modeling containment atmosphere, they model the entire global atmosphere. Garbage in equals garbage out. They simulate what outcomes will be over time. But the results are based on thermal and mass balance forcing functions set up in the code. If those input functions are incorrect (based on inaccurate data), then the results are going to be incorrect. There is nothing to gain from that. Just like the professor states in at 1:30 second mark in this video
Bro, the implication that R squared isn't used in multivariate analysis is pretty disqualifying here for you. Error propagation is a real issue but that's why you use things like R squared. To help understand and explain the results.
There is a lot of climate data that is still useful for decision making, and there is a lot of evidence we are a big part of the problem.
I will watch your video when I get home from work, I do love Professor Peterson.
Do me a favor and watch some Thunderfoot climate videos when you get a chance:
You spend more time trying to prove I don't understand statistics and modeling. I get paid to do that but thanks for clarifying the basics. Anyone can google what r squared means.
R-squared (R 2) is a statistical measure that represents the proportion of the variance for a dependent variable that's explained by an independent variable or variables in a regression model.
BTW that guy in the video you posted sounds like a political hack
DUDE. You KEEP doing this:
From Wikipedia:
---------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Bernt Peterson (born June 12, 1962) is a Canadian clinical psychologist and a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto. His main areas of study are in abnormal, social, and personality psychology,[1] with a particular interest in the psychology of religious and ideological belief[2] and the assessment and improvement of personality and performance.[3]
Education
After graduating from Fairview High School in 1979, Peterson entered the Grande Prairie Regional College to study political science and English literature.[2] He later transferred to the University of Alberta, where he completed his B.A. in political science in 1982.[30] Afterwards, he took a year off to visit Europe. There he began studying the psychological origins of the Cold War, 20th-century European totalitarianism,[2][31] and the works of Carl Jung, Friedrich Nietzsche, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn,[24] and Fyodor Dostoyevsky.[31] He then returned to the University of Alberta and received a B.A. in psychology in 1984.[32] In 1985, he moved to Montreal to attend McGill University. He earned his Ph.D. in clinical psychology under the supervision of Robert O. Pihl in 1991, and remained as a post-doctoral fellow at McGill's Douglas Hospital until June 1993, working with Pihl and Maurice Dongier.[2][33]
Climate change
Peterson doubts the scientific consensus on climate change,[135][136] saying he is "very skeptical of the models that are used to predict climate change,"[137] and that "[y]ou can't trust the data because too much ideology is involved".[136][138]
----------------------------------------------------------
Where are his credentials on Climate? THERE ARE NONE.
Most crazy statement he makes? "You can't trust the data, because too much ideology is involved."
The data is what you CAN trust. It's how we measure things. How you use that data is another thing, but the data itself? Come on.
If there's bias, and their is for sure on both sides. Again, who do you believe? A. Thousands and thousands of Climate experts. B. A few people without expertise in Climate.
Which group is "more likely" to be influenced by their ideology?
You have already made this prejudice argument more than once and it's hot garbage. You don't need to be a "climate scientist" in order to make a valid observation about the bogus climate models.
You put real critical thinking into that response I can tell, btw obviously you didn't watch it because he is the furthest thing from a political hack lol.
Plenty of people get paid to run an algorithm and check for issues. Not as many people can write the algorithm. I'm not saying you can't, but I am saying "getting paid to do that" doesn't really mean anything.
I'm convinced that you can't make intelligent observations. Your capabilities are limited to believing in people who you trust. Your ad hominem attacks on me were just your way of trolling people who say things that you don't agree with. Your only relevant point to this thread was to say that uncertainty in input data doesn't matter when it comes to the results of climate models which was about the dumbest thing you could have said and nobody believes you. Your reason as you said is because climate models make probable determinations which is false. Climate models determine the future temperature of the climate and the future sea levels based on assumed inputs. Thus, they are deterministic models and are subject to error based on the uncertainty in the input data. This is not rocket science. I am just an engineer and I understand this.
"The rise in CO2 doesn't correlate to Global Temperature change"
Dr. Freeman Dyson Institute for Advanced Studies
Princeton Univ.
"There certainly is an enormous religion in which there are true believers who think that climate change is evil and we are going to encounter big catastrophes. That's a kind of belief system that I don't pretend to understand their motives"
"The climate models are no good" 11:15 mark
"There is a whole lot of things the models leave out"
"You can't model everything"
"The average temperature of the earth is a very poorly defined thing … so there is every reason for not trusting these things"
Dr. Freeman Dyson Institute for Advanced Studies
Princeton Univ.
"There certainly is an enormous religion in which there are true believers who think that climate change is evil and we are going to encounter big catastrophes. That's a kind of belief system that I don't pretend to understand their motives"
"The climate models are no good" 11:15 mark
"There is a whole lot of things the models leave out"
"You can't model everything"
"The average temperature of the earth is a very poorly defined thing … so there is every reason for not trusting these things"
Last edited:
No it is not hot garbage, It's the way people do business around the world EVERY FREAKING DAY. The folks who spout off this kind of stuff tell us the world is flat, aliens are probing their asses, and the mole men live in their toilets. .
I bet when you need medical treatment, you go to a doctor right? Someone with a medical degree and years of training. Maybe even a specialist if you need one. What's a specialist? Someone with extra training and expertise of course. Why don't you just run to you local high school and let the school nurse operate on you? What if she told you all Dr's are lying and all you need is crystal therapy?
I bet if you needed a building or bridge designed, you'd use an architect or a group of engineers. You know, someone who knows what they are doing and has a degree and credentials and years of experience doing that. Why wouldn't you use the guy who built your patio a couple of years ago? He's an "expert" in building stuff right? So if he tells you that (all engineers and architects are lying) and that you could save a TON by using aluminum rather than steel in your support construction, you'd believe him right?
How about your taxes? CPA or your cousin Bubba (who was REALLY GOOD at math back in HS)?
Dental work? DDS or maybe the plumber down the street?
You've been accused of a crime. Lawyer, or that retired police officer across the road that watches Judge Judy every day?
Almost every profession has some form of certification and educational requirements. That process serves to make the folks in it have a basic level of competence in their profession. Hell, you need a licence and credentials to be a freaking BARBER. You have to take a test and pass to have a driver's licence for God's sake.
But for climate science. The experts know nothing (and are conning us all) and the guys with no experience or education in the field know it all. Right.
So this guy sees flaws in a climate model? Don't you think that the thousands and thousands of scientist with actual degrees in that field might see it too if it was there? Maybe? Or just maybe, it's your guy that's wrong about the model?
I'm not reading this. Again. You keep making the same point. Stop typing. This is a polite way of me saying, I'm ignoring you.
Of course you are... because you've no answers to my point. I've been asking for real climate science by real climate scientists for proof that damn near every expert in the world is lying to us, and all you got is a psychologist from the UN telling me not to trust the data. Pull that tinfoil hat down over your eyes...
That is very bigoted. Also, nobody is denying that the climate is changing. CO2 levels are rising and the climate is changing. Just not as much as some people think and not for the same reasons most people think. In fact, there is no evidence that CO2 is contributing to climate change.
Sorry, I'm bigoted towards people who claim without proof to know more than the scientists following the scientific method have concluded. The claims you make are dubious.
Weird, I am pretty sure I agreed you made good points about uncertainty and then I countered them.
If at this point you are bowing out of the debate because your statistical knowledge of things like "R-Squared is only relevant to two variables" is a hill you choose to die on, then that is on you.
Especially weird since I am almost the only person on here that has engaged you in actual math and statistics.
LOL they determine the probability of future temperature and sea level rise, thus they are deterministic? lol. They do not. They determine the probability of these things happening because they are NOT deterministic. How can you have so much of an issue with the definition of these things.
Last edited:
Understand. You are a bigot. Have a nice day.
Bigot | Definition of Bigot at Dictionary.com
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/bigot
Sep 28, 2014 · a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion. race-baiting
Yah i used the verb bigoted in my own words. I am definitely a bigot towards those who celebrate and promote ignorance. So yes, its implied I understand and describe myself as such. Did you think I didn't understand the words I used? I'm INTOLERANT to those parroting the narrative energy companies have been cultivating for decades in order to 'call into question' the science.
I'm also bigoted towards people who don't use their turn signals and who drive slow in the left hand lane on the highway. It's not like I'm bigoted towards people for things they can't help, like disabilities, nationality or race.
Deterministic models compute variables in time.
Probabilistic models don't. They give you the probability of an event (Core Damage) happening now (Once in a million years 10^-6) given a certain set of circumstances. If you secure a Bravo train of a safety related pump, that might go down to 10^-4. Fault tree models are big and sophisticated. Nobody uses them more than the Nuclear Industry. All this talk about R squared is used to develop expressions that correlate independent with dependent variables which can be used as input forcing functions that drive deterministic models. In fact, climate scientist will tell you what happens in the future if we vary CO2 production now but they need expressions that correlate C02 levels with atmospheric heat absorption which creates a greenhouse effect. I'm no expert at their models but assuming they have it all tied together mathematically and physically, the model is only as good as the accuracy of the inputs. Therein lies the rub which is what some of the people are pushing back on
That's not to say some of the CO2 feedback methods are established fact either.
Similar threads
