/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11068629
They're confident about predicting a range the climate will be in decades into the future.

>>10670364
>What happens when your climate model fucks up?
Then we'll correct it, that's how science works. But why are you so sure that it'll fuck up? It's based on decades of research into the chemistry and physics of the climate and direct empirical observation. You seem to be assuming that it's a curve fitting exercise when it's clearly not. Dyson is simply a contrarian who has no idea what goes into these models and neither do you.

>>10555250
>They people trying to alter the climate record have given an excuse and you should believe it.
This is rich coming from the guy who expects his conspiracy theories to be believed without evidence and while ignoring all other explanations!

>>10550872
What part of climate change is not reproducible?

>>10551080
>Climate models are not representative of observed data, meaning the models are innately flawed.
But that's wrong.

>>10414643
Wrong.

>>10392527
Literally false.

>>10333287
>Of course, it's just not as trivial as you want it to be, in a system we can't even hope to simulate in any sufficient accuracy in our lifetime.
The research that has led is to this conclusion is hardly trivial. And we already are modeling it to an accuracy high enough to see the effect of future emissions. Again, why do you think otherwise? What is your opinion based on?

You refuse to make an argument, just baseless claims. You're not worth even responding to.

>>10299320
Why are you lying?

>>10265135

>>10260547
>No it isn't, that was part of the conversation but the opening statement made no mention of Dyson so any deviation is on your part, not mine.
That was the line of conversation you were responding to. If you were responding to OP then respond to OP.

>>10260562
>Dyson is not a climate scientist, but he's a smart man and I value his input on the matter. i'm not appealing to him because he's an authority, but the fact that he's an eminent physicist gives his statements serious credibility.
This doesn't respond to my post. Why should I believe him over the credentialed scientists who disagree with him?

>Regardless of the character, the argument still stands. Long-term predictions in climate science are a long ways away. Lorenz showed that.
Lorenz didn't show that climate is chaotic, he showed that weather is chaotic. Only certain features of climate are chaotic. Over the timescale of global warming, temperature is largely determined by the energy balance of the Earth and not turbulent flow of the atmosphere. This is why climate models have been successful.

>>10236886

>>10219921
It doesn't have the same chaotic property, when you average over time and solace you remove local and short term effects. If global temperature was chaotic then we would not be able to predict it, but we can.

>>10164193

>>10116789
>Where do they deny that it's getting warmer?
There's one in this very thread >>10114787

Here's a blog: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/10/svensmark-global-warming-stopped-and-a-cooling-is-beginning-enjoy-global-warming-while-it-lasts/

>The ones used by IPCC in their ensembles.
Which are the shoddy ones that people are incorrectly drawing conclusion from?

>No. If you went to Wall Street with your models, you'd be broke in 5 years.
>If you showed your models to CERN number-crunchers for peer-review, they would tell you to publish them at vixra.
I'm sure, since the models are for predicting global temperature, not markets or particle collisions. They do a very good job of projecting the climate. Pic related is from 15 years ago.

>Indeed. That's not what climate deniers have problems with.
A lot of them do, as you can see in this very thread.

>They have problems with "hurr durr human cause GW because model say so".
It's not just because models have shown this, it's also because we know the greenhouse effect exists, we know the amount of CO2 humans are emitting and we know exactly how much infrared heat is being radiated towards the Earth from CO2 by direct observation. But even if you ignore all this, the models have been successful and you have presented no better alternative. I don't see why you are denying them and making shit up.

>>9896134
>apart from conveniently ignoring empiric evidence that doesn't agree with consensus
What evidence has been ignored?

>relying on ensembles without understanding them
What are you referring to?

>it produced no model to test its predictions and is contradictory to some models currently being used.
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Many models based on our current understanding of radiative forcings have been created and are very accurate. Pic related is CMIP3.

>>9842560
>By artificially creating warming.
That doesn't answer my question. How is the data being corrupted?

>And none of their predictions have come true.
Wrong.

>Because they are missing 50% of temperature coverage of the earth.
How is the data fake?

>Not ones that keep being wrong.
They keep being right.

>Vanguard are incredibly powerful, if they weren't oil companies would publicly deny global warming.
They don't deny it publicly because that would generate bad PR for them. They do try to spread doubt by funding lots of denial of the scientific evidence. Unfortunately for them, several deniers had to reveal their sponsorship in court. So let's try this again, what evidence is there of oil companies controlling climatology and climatology being fraudulent?

>>9834765

>>9820060
Wow look at how far into the future this projection is, there's no way to tell if it's correct.

By the way, if the models didn't exist, how would you deny the direct evidence that human emitted CO2 is rapidly warming the Earth?

>>9709093
CMIP (standard model of the IPCC) projection from 15 years ago

>>9611181
Here's CMIP3 from 2004.