The Weather Channel ask Breitbart to stop lying.

[Nithavela]

Might as well ask the sun to rise in the west.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Huh? What are you talking about?

Your proof that mankind's actions will overpower the effect on climate of the sun is a graph detailing what will happen in the future, presented as though it were evidence of actual established facts.

 

[JGG]

Why not ask the birds to stop singing? Or the sun to stop shining? Or the stars to not twinkle? Or Adam Sandler to not entrance us with his portrayal of a mentally challenged heir/golfer/waterboy?

 

[aachen_hexagon]

Your proof that mankind's actions will overpower the effect on climate of the sun is a graph detailing what will happen in the future, presented as though it were evidence of actual established facts.

Based on climate forcing calculations it seems that indeed we will be able to forestall the next ice age. The forcing due to the Milankovich Cycles (related to the tilt of the earth) might be offset by the forcings we are adding into the system (our increasing of the atmospheric CO2 content). A recent study found that likely human activity will delay the next glaciation by a great deal of time.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v529/n7585/full/nature16494.html

 

[MoonlessNight]

Based on climate forcing calculations it seems that indeed we will be able to forestall the next ice age. The forcing due to the Milankovich Cycles (related to the tilt of the earth) might be offset by the forcings we are adding into the system (our increasing of the atmospheric CO2 content). A recent study found that likely human activity will delay the next glaciation by a great deal of time.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v529/n7585/full/nature16494.html

Models for the election based on sound analysis of polling, economic, demographic and other trends showed that Republicans would face a devastating defeat in the elections, both on the presidential and congressional levels.

As we all know that future predictions are in fact rock solid facts, provided that the model is complicated enough, the Republicans should currently be thinking of how to react to these devastating defeats.

 

[JGG]

Models for the election based on sound analysis of polling, economic, demographic and other trends showed that Republicans would face a devastating defeat in the elections, both on the presidential and congressional levels.

As we all know that future predictions are in fact rock solid facts, provided that the model is complicated enough, the Republicans should currently be thinking of how to react to these devastating defeats.

We should be basing our decisions on the words of the prophets.

 

[aachen_hexagon]

Models for the election based on sound analysis of polling, economic, demographic and other trends showed that Republicans would face a devastating defeat in the elections, both on the presidential and congressional levels.

Not quite the same thing. Here's why:

What I'm talking about are called physical models. Physical models like the ones the describe gravity (F=Gmm/r^2) rely on utilizing known physical factors. Climate modelling is based on these sorts of mathematical relationships as well as some mathematical relationships based on empirical analysis. It's not quite the same as assessing "human preferences" which involve not only unquantifiable concepts like people changing their minds etc. but are almost wholly statistical in nature.

It isn't reasonable to compare a physical model to an "opinion model" based on sampled polling data.

As we all know that future predictions are in fact rock solid facts, provided that the model is complicated enough, the Republicans should currently be thinking of how to react to these devastating defeats.

In actuality the models were right: Clinton won the popular vote by a significant margin. The vaguaries of the electoral map gave Donald the win. NOT the popular vote.

But that being said there really is no comparison between physical models and mathematical models based on opinion polls.

 

[USincognito]

Your proof...

If you wish to be taken seriously in a scientific discussion, you'll stop using proof/proven, etc. Science doesn't deal in proof and there's no such thing as "scientific proof". That's a line from Madison Avenue, not science.

...that mankind's actions will overpower the effect on climate of the sun....

What do you mean by "overpower" the effect of the sun. Do you even grasp what's going on in the climate?

1. The last three solar cycles (since 1986) have been some of the weakest on record with decreasing solar activity.
2. Despite that, the earth has continued to get warmer.
3. When all the other factors are taken into account, the only reason for that happening is the increase in CO2 from ~310ppm in 1960 to over 400ppm today. For the month of November, it was the first time the monthly average didn't go below ~400ppm.

...is a graph detailing what will happen in the future, presented as though it were evidence of actual established facts.

No, you're very confused. We're talking about actual observations now and over the past 30 years and whether those trends will continue. There's no evidence that they won't.

 

[MoonlessNight]

If you wish to be taken seriously in a scientific discussion, you'll stop using proof/proven, etc. Science doesn't deal in proof and there's no such thing as "scientific proof". That's a line from Madison Avenue, not science.

Oh, I know scientists. Most aren't even familiar with the concept of "proof" generally, not being able to walk through a proof of the Pythagorean theorem or the like.

And you are right that proof isn't the currency of science. The real currency is grant bux.

2. Despite that, the earth has continued to get warmer.

Here's one thing that you have to ask about every paper: are you looking at actual temperature, or modeled temperature?

If you dig into the guts of papers you'll often find that you're talking about modeled temperature, even for past and current values. The tendency to do things like average and treat linear fits as through they were data points is endemic, and that's just the first round of modeling. If you start throwing random variables into the mix, all bets are off.

3. When all the other factors are taken into account, the only reason for that happening is the increase in CO2 from ~310ppm in 1960 to over 400ppm today. For the month of November, it was the first time the monthly average didn't go below ~400ppm.

Color me skeptical that "all other factors" could possibly be taken into account. Experiments in controlled laboratory conditions often are not able to take into account all factors that could influence the results, and we're literally talking about anything that happens in the entire world, together with everything happening in our neighborhood in space, when we are talking about "all other factors."

Usually when this sort of thing is said what is meant is that the data is inconsistent with some sort of random variable. Given that the conclusion has been made correctly (it often isn't), it doesn't really tell us anything. Nothing actually occurs due to random variables, they are mathematical abstractions.

No, you're very confused. We're talking about actual observations now and over the past 30 years and whether those trends will continue. There's no evidence that they won't.

Why did you then post a graph where the trends over the last 30 years are almost impossible to see because the scale is designed for hypothetical future events?

 

[USincognito]

Oh, I know scientists. Most aren't even familiar with the concept of "proof" generally, not being able to walk through a proof of the Pythagorean theorem or the like.

That's nice.

And you are right that proof isn't the currency of science. The real currency is grant bux.

Take this to the appropriate subforum.
Conspiracy Theories

Here's one thing that you have to ask about every paper: are you looking at actual temperature, or modeled temperature?

Is your assertion that modeling (when it's used) will create trends that don't actually exist? Trends that show up in numerous different studies by numerous different climate units in different countries?

Color me skeptical that "all other factors" could possibly be taken into account.

Then tell us. What factors do you think they're not taking into account? If you're going to try and poison the well, you need to at least pour some actual poison into it rather than allude to it's existence.

Experiments in controlled laboratory conditions often are not able to take into account all factors that could influence the results, and we're literally talking about anything that happens in the entire world, together with everything happening in our neighborhood in space, when we are talking about "all other factors."

Again, just give us some examples of what factors you think climate scientists are not taking into account.

Why did you then post a graph where the trends over the last 30 years are almost impossible to see because the scale is designed for hypothetical future events?

What the heck are you talking about? I haven't posted any graphs. Are you confusing me with Gene2memE who posted a graph about Maunder Minimums in post #4?

 

[SteveB28]

Models for the election based on sound analysis of polling, economic, demographic and other trends showed that Republicans would face a devastating defeat in the elections, both on the presidential and congressional levels.

As we all know that future predictions are in fact rock solid facts, provided that the model is complicated enough, the Republicans should currently be thinking of how to react to these devastating defeats.

Well, not entirely wrong. By how much is Mrs Clinton now beating Trump nationwide? Would it be close to the margin indicated by those polls?...

.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Well, not entirely wrong. By how much is Mrs Clinton now beating Trump nationwide? Would it be close to the margin indicated by those polls?...

Ahead by 2.7 million now and approaching the amount of total votes Obama got in 2012

 

[SteveB28]

Ahead by 2.7 million now and approaching the amount of total votes Obama got in 2012

Amazing isn't it? Millions of votes more, yet only about 80,000 that lost her 3 crucial states...

.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Amazing isn't it? Millions of votes more, yet only about 80,000 that lost her 3 crucial states...

Yep. Don't expect the republicans to join in with wanting to reform the EC. They've only won the popular vote once since 1992. Democrats get awful turn out in mid terms and they're defending a ton of seats in 2018. Its going to be a long 4 years. I hope i'm over reacting and I end up being very wrong.

 

[SteveB28]

Yep. Don't expect the republicans to join in with wanting to reform the EC. They've only won the popular vote once since 1992. Democrats get awful turn out in mid terms and they're defending a ton of seats in 2018. Its going to be a long 4 years. I hope i'm over reacting and I end up being very wrong.

Of course, a lot of these problems would be erased if you had a compulsory voting requirement. But I imagine your Republican lawmakers wouldn't exactly leap at that one either.....



.

 

[cow451]

Weather is the day to day changes in precipitation and temperature, climate is the long term average of a place's temperature and precipitation, which by all measurements our climate is warming.

Therefore, you should know that the short-term weather patterns are more influenced by natural events like volcanic activity and man-made emissions. Yes, the earth is warming and we can agree on that.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Well, not entirely wrong. By how much is Mrs Clinton now beating Trump nationwide? Would it be close to the margin indicated by those polls?...

Most models put even a close Hillary loss as very unlikely. But now that it has happened instead of questioning the models we are given explanations of how the models actually weren't so bad if you look at them just the right way.

Pretty consistent with the search for the lost global heat, actually.

 

[SteveB28]

Most models put even a close Hillary loss as very unlikely. But now that it has happened instead of questioning the models we are given explanations of how the models actually weren't so bad if you look at them just the right way.

Pretty consistent with the search for the lost global heat, actually.

Those "models" predicted her winning nationally by around 2%.

She has.




.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Those "models" predicted her winning nationally by around 2%.

She has.




.

And they also predicted her sweeping the electoral college, with Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania as sure fire bets.

You can spend all days defending a prediction by saying that you got some small part of it correct. Phony psychics have made an art of it.

 

[SteveB28]

And they also predicted her sweeping the electoral college, with Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania as sure fire bets.

You can spend all days defending a prediction by saying that you got some small part of it correct. Phony psychics have made an art of it.

Actually, no.

The more reputable organisations indicated that the state numbers were tightening significantly during the last few weeks. More than one of them countenanced the possibility that Mrs Clinton could win the national vote, but still lose enough states to fall short.

This is what happened.



.