Climate Models Can Never Work, Says Computer Modeller

[Into the Night]

Sighs. When you start off with a non sequitur, it wrecks your entire article.

You need to refresh your knowledge of logic.

Fallacy fallacy. No non-sequitur occurred. You deny logic.

 

[AProudLefty]

A computer model is not data. Random numbers are not data either.

Correct.

 

[Into the Night]

I accept your concession. Bye bye.

Assumption of victory fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Comparing a lottery machine to climate modelling???

Yes. They are both random number generators.

 

[Into the Night]

I never offered it ffs. The guy who wrote that is a former climate modeller and I'm sure he knows a fuckton more about the subject that either of us!!

No. He doesn't.

If you cannot make a model to predict the outcome of the next draw from a lottery ball machine, you are unable to make a model to predict the future of the climate, suggests former computer modeller Greg Chapman, in a recent essay in Quadrant. Chapman holds a PhD in physics and notes that the climate system is chaotic, which means “any model will be a poor predictor of the future”. A lottery ball machine, he observes, “is a comparatively much simpler and smaller interacting system”.

The guy doesn't understand random number mathematics. He doesn't understand why a lottery ball machine is a randR generator or why a computer climate model (program) is a randU generator. There is nothing 'simpler' about a lottery ball machine.

Most climate models run hot, a polite term for endless failed predictions of runaway global warming.

A nonsense statement, since there is no global temperature data. He is comparing random numbers to a void.

If this was a “real scientific process’” argues Chapman, the hottest two thirds of the models would be rejected by the International Panel for Climate Change (IPCC).

Statistical math is not science. Neither is random number math. Chapman ignores both and ignores science by this statement.

If that happened, he continues, there would be outrage amongst the climate scientists community, especially from the rejected teams, “due to their subsequent loss of funding”.

Climate isn't a science. Science isn't a community. Science isn't government funding.

More importantly, he added, “the so-called 97% consensus would instantly evaporate”.

There never was a 97% consensus. Science itself does not use consensus.

Once the hottest models were rejected, the temperature rise to 2100 would be 1.5°C since pre-industrial times, mostly due to natural warming. “There would be no panic, and the gravy train would end,” he said

Here Chapman uses a buzzword, 'natural warming'. It is meaningless.
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

 

[Into the Night]

There is no way to predict the next lottery numbers. However, you can predict the number of wins in, say a year, with reasonable accuracy.

No, you can't. Denial of probability mathematics. Discard of statistical mathematics. Math errors: use of random number to form prediction. Failure to declare and justify variance. Failure to calculate margin of error value.

This computer modeller and you are claiming that those scientists have been lying to keep getting funded.

They have.

That's a wild claim.

No. It happens all the time.

That's tantamount to grant fraud.

Debatable. Is the government so willing to fund religious activity like this using grants a fraud by the religious claiming random numbers are data, or is it a fraud on the part of the government to provide such a grant?

I suppose either way, it's fraud.

 

[Hawkeye10]

We have been fucked by lying models over and over and over again.

We never learn, a sure sign of the death of the West.

 

[Into the Night]

I get the argument. It is based on the number of stations. Apparently it is not enough data to make an accurate prediction.

That would be statisticians' job.

Statistical math is incapable of prediction due to it's use of random numbers.
Probability math is incapable of prediction due to it's use of random numbers.

 

[Into the Night]

Well I understand that. The more data they have over time, the more accurate the prediction will be.

The lottery machine comparison is wrong because there is NO data to make any kind of prediction for the next numbers.

However, Greg made a better analogy.

Consider a shotgun. When the trigger is pulled, the pellets from the cartridge travel down the barrel, but there is also lateral movement of the pellets. The purpose of the shotgun barrel is to dampen the lateral movements and to narrow the spread when the pellets leave the barrel. It’s well known that shotguns have limited accuracy over long distances, that the shot pattern that grows with distance from the muzzle.

The history-match period for a climate model is like the barrel of the shotgun. So what happens when the model moves from matching to forecasting mode?

Let's take that analogy further. The more pellets (data sets) you have, the more accurate it will be over a distance.

There is no data.

 

[AProudLefty]

Statistical math is incapable of prediction due to it's use of random numbers.
Probability math is incapable of prediction due to it's use of random numbers.

Um everyone knows that.

 

[Into the Night]

See that where a lottery machine would make a sort-of good analogy.

Core samples and in depth temperature measurements and such would give you data.

As I have stated, do not start your argument with a very bad fallacy. You're a self described expert on fallacies so you should know.

Core samples do not measure temperature.
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
Fallacy fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy. False authority fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

It's a non sequitur.

Fallacy fallacy. No non-sequitur occurred.

A lottery machine has no data to predict the next numbers. Therefore the fallacy destroys the entire argument.

Attempted proof by buzzword.

The author saved face by using a better analogy:

The author can't save face.

Consider a shotgun. When the trigger is pulled, the pellets from the cartridge travel down the barrel, but there is also lateral movement of the pellets. The purpose of the shotgun barrel is to dampen the lateral movements and to narrow the spread when the pellets leave the barrel. It’s well known that shotguns have limited accuracy over long distances, that the shot pattern that grows with distance from the muzzle.

The history-match period for a climate model is like the barrel of the shotgun.

There is no history. False equivalence fallacy.

So what happens when the model moves from matching to forecasting mode?

There is no 'matching mode', since there is no data to match. Argument from randU fallacy.

The moral of the story? Never make a retarded statement or a fallacy before starting your argument because it will be dismissed outright.

Inversion fallacy.

 

[AProudLefty]

If you call a head on the first coin toss, what is the probability?
If you call a head on the nth coin toss, what is the probability?

 

[Into the Night]

Correct.

Denial of self argument fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Um everyone knows that.

Omniscience fallacy. Denial of self argument fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

If you call a head on the first coin toss, what is the probability?
If you call a head on the nth coin toss, what is the probability?

0.5 regardless of the size of n. A coin toss is a simple randR generator.

Probability is not prediction. Probability math is incapable of prediction due to it's use of random numbers. You cannot predict the outcome of the next coin toss or even the outcome of any N coin toss.

 

[AProudLefty]

0.5 regardless of the size of n. A coin toss is a simple randR generator.

Probability is not prediction. Probability math is incapable of prediction due to it's use of random numbers. You cannot predict the outcome of the next coin toss or even the outcome of any N coin toss.

It is clear you have not taken a course in probability.

 

[Into the Night]

It is clear you have not taken a course in probability.

Probability math is not a course. It is a branch of mathematics. You are just ignoring it.

Las Vegas loves people like you.

 

[Bigdog]