Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Making Things Up?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #2
    c] There is no global warming.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      c] There is no global warming.

      Comment


      • #4
        Global warming is real and caused by cigarette smoking.
        Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
          Global warming is real and caused by cigarette smoking.
          Another .

          Comment


          • #6
            Conclusion of the long OP link:
            Attribution

            I am arguing that climate models are not fit for the purpose of detection and attribution of climate change on decadal to multidecadal timescales. Figure 10.1 speaks for itself in this regard (see figure 11.25 for a zoom in on the recent hiatus). By ‘fit for purpose’, I am prepared to settle for getting an answer that falls in the right tercile.

            The main relevant deficiencies of climate models are:
            • climate sensitivity that appears to be too high, probably associated with problems in the fast thermodynamic feedbacks (water vapor, lapse rate, clouds)
            • failure to simulate the correct network of multidecadal oscillations and their correct phasing
            • substantial uncertainties in aerosol indirect effects
            • unknown and uncertain solar indirect effects


            So, how to sort this out and do a more realistic job of detecting climate change and and attributing it to natural variability versus anthropogenic forcing? Observationally based methods and simple models have been underutilized in this regard. Of great importance is to consider uncertainties in external forcing in context of attribution uncertainties.

            The logic of reasoning about climate uncertainty, is not at all straightforward, as discussed in my paper Reasoning about climate uncertainty.

            So, am I ‘making things up’? Seems to me that I am applying straightforward logic. Which IMO has been disturbingly absent in attribution arguments, that use climate models that aren’t fit for purpose, use circular reasoning in detection, fail to assess the impact of forcing uncertainties on the attribution, and are heavily spiced by expert judgment and subjective downweighting.


            Comment

            Related Threads

            Collapse

            Topics Statistics Last Post
            Started by Whateverman, Yesterday, 07:17 PM
            3 responses
            28 views
            0 likes
            Last Post CivilDiscourse  
            Started by Whateverman, Yesterday, 04:39 PM
            1 response
            19 views
            0 likes
            Last Post Maranatha  
            Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, Yesterday, 03:30 PM
            23 responses
            112 views
            0 likes
            Last Post CivilDiscourse  
            Started by Whateverman, 10-20-2020, 08:11 PM
            4 responses
            43 views
            1 like
            Last Post Bill the Cat  
            Started by shunyadragon, 10-20-2020, 07:16 PM
            28 responses
            124 views
            0 likes
            Last Post Sparko
            by Sparko
             
            Working...
            X