A Model Failure

[brenthutch 383]

22 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Appears that your understanding of correlation and causation is as strong as your understanding of "pilling on" and "continue digging."

Since you aren't presenting evidence there isn't much else to discuss.

I presented my evidence, still waiting for yours, until you do so, I agree, there isn’t much else to discuss.  Until then, concession accepted.

[kallend 1,623]

8 hours ago, olofscience said:

It's what he does - bait with some cherry-picked links, then challenge people to refute it, even if he hasn't done any work since it's someone else's points in the first place.

If someone actually does the work to refute it, he'll just drop it and move on to the next topic.

That's all he's got to contribute. Rinse, repeat, ad infinitum.

Classic trolling, yet people keep feeding the troll.

[olofscience 420]

14 hours ago, brenthutch said:

I have been waiting 19 years and no one has been up to the task.

Oh, I've only been around for a fraction of that and I've already sunk several of your points. 

"Up to the task" = "convincing brent" then it's goalpost moving galore, no thanks. 

 

Interestingly enough, with the time you've spent trolling about this someone could have studied and completed several doctorates.

Yet here you are still unable to do basic maths...

As Joe said, go find a hobby. Almost anything would be remotely more useful than trolling. You might even learn something, god forbid!

[brenthutch 383]

1 hour ago, olofscience said:

Oh, I've only been around for a fraction of that and I've already sunk several of your points. 

Point 1. Climate models cannot accurately reproduce regional temperature differences 

Point 2. Climate related deaths are down 

Point 3. Global food production is up

Just which of my points have you “sunk”?
 

(That was a rhetorical question. I don’t expect you to be able to answer)

 

[gowlerk 1,910]

10 hours ago, kallend said:

Classic trolling, yet people keep feeding the troll.

Yup. This thread is on page two already in less than a day. Another success in trollville.

[olofscience 420]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Just which of my points have you “sunk”?

Nice try   exactly as predicted!

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

I don’t expect you to be able to answer

Talking to yourself again? You should get help for that...

[brenthutch 383]

4 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Nice try   exactly as predicted!

Talking to yourself again? You should get help for that...

[wmw999 2,121]

Does this constitute an admission to trolling? Your one warning. 

Wendy P. 

[brenthutch 383]

19 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Does this constitute an admission to trolling? Your one warning. 

Wendy P. 

The OP was about the failure of the latest set of climate models. I later added the decline in climate related deaths and record global food production as evidence that we are not in the midst of a “climate crisis”.  Those simple facts upset someone. Unable to address the substance of my post, a member resorted to insults.  The image is just a graphical representation of that member’s inability to engage in a meaningful manner.

My claims were backed up by several sources.  

Edited April 27, 2022 by brenthutch

[olofscience 420]

Funny when you don't even read past the titles of your "sources"... 

[brenthutch 383]

1 hour ago, olofscience said:

Funny when you don't even read past the titles of your "sources"... 

Yet you still can’t rebut even one of my three points.  That makes me sad. 

[SkyDekker 1,121]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Yet you still can’t rebut even one of my three points.  That makes me sad. 

Your three points are meaningless as standalone points. They only have meaning when you start forming a thesis or an opinion around those points.

So, what is your thesis?

[brenthutch 383]

1 hour ago, SkyDekker said:

Your three points are meaningless as standalone points. They only have meaning when you start forming a thesis or an opinion around those points.

So, what is your thesis?

Climate Models suck, there is no climate crisis.

What is yours?

Edited April 27, 2022 by brenthutch

[billvon 2,396]

4 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

So, what is your thesis?

That he can get you to reply to any meaningless post he makes.

[olofscience 420]

9 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Your three points are meaningless as standalone points. They only have meaning when you start forming a thesis or an opinion around those points.

So, what is your thesis?

They also have huge gaps in logic, and the statements being kindergarten-level language actually shows there's not much intelligence there to back them up. He'll have to drop back to "sources" for any defence of his points, but we all know he only reads the titles (and gets it wrong even then).

Like how I rebutted his point about EU fracking, even just reading his "sources" is usually enough to rebut him, but that's already a level of effort more than he's put into his trolling.

[brenthutch 383]

3 hours ago, olofscience said:

They also have huge gaps in logic, and the statements being kindergarten-level language actually shows there's not much intelligence there to back them up. 

And yet you still cannot debunk even one of my three points.  (It must be awfully embarrassing for a genius like you to be routinely flummoxed by a simpleton like me)

BTW you failed to debunk my point about the EU and fracking.

To sum up:

Me- If the EU developed its shale gas reserves via fracking , they could reduce their dependence on Russian gas.

Olof- there would still be a tiny gap

Me- That could be easily filled with a bit of coal

Olof- SO YOU ADMIT THERE WOULD BE A GAP!!!  YAY I WIN!!!  I WIN!!!

(And that from a guy who says the reason China is building so many coal plants, is because wind and solar are cheaper and more scalable”)

 

[olofscience 420]

Someone seems upset...must be early morning there 

[wmw999 2,121]

Dont keep poking if you don't want endless back-and-forths, warnings, etc. Poking is a form of trolling. If the discussion is tiresome and repetitive, just quit. Being the last one standing in an internet discussion isn't winning. 

Wendy P. 

[DougH 270]

On 4/26/2022 at 7:40 AM, brenthutch said:

“Accurately reproducing regional temperature differences over the past 40+ years is beyond the capability of climate model simulations, and even fails for major ocean basins and continents. The result suggests the existence of major issues with all models”

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1029/2022GL097716

My IR Thermometer may not accurately read the temperature of my burning house, but that failure doesn't change the reality that my house is burning and getting worse as time goes on.

[brenthutch 383]

30 minutes ago, DougH said:

My IR Thermometer may not accurately read the temperature of my burning house, but that failure doesn't change the reality that my house is burning and getting worse as time goes on.

If you IR thermometer indicated your house was on fire and getting worse yet your house was just fine, would be a more apt analogy.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

15 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Climate Models suck, there is no climate crisis.

What is yours?

That there will be a continued escalation in the negative effects we see from climate change.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

If you IR thermometer indicated your house was on fire and getting worse yet your house was just fine, would be a more apt analogy.

Your position is much like saying an unconscious skydiver with no AAD, in freefall and 100 feet above the ground, is just fine because they are breathing and their heart is beating, and perhaps you could throw in that birds are singing somewhere.  More objective people, taking a more inclusive view of the situation, may have a different opinion.

[brenthutch 383]

14 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

That there will be a continued escalation in the negative effects we see from climate change.

More food, fewer deaths?

[DougH 270]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

More food, fewer deaths?

I passed gas today in the vicinity of my wife, later this afternoon she was in a great mood. More gas, happy wife, HAPPY LIFE.

Makes about as much sense as everything else that you have posted in here.

[billvon 2,396]

This topic made me want to look up past predictions and see how well they did.

1973, John Sawyer of the UK Met office.  He predicted that between 1973 and 2000 the climate would warm by approximately .6C.  Actual value - .56C

1975, Wally Broeker of Columbia.  He claimed that "a strong case can be made that the present cooling trend will, within a decade or so, give way to a pronounced warming induced by carbon dioxide."  He was, of course, ridiculed.

1981, James Hansen, NASA.  In his fast-growth scenario (i.e. rapid economic growth, minimal attempts to reduce CO2) he predicted .75C between 1981 and 2020.  He was almost dead on - his (smooth) curve goes right down the center of the peaks and valleys of the actual climate in the past 40 years.

1988, James Hansen, NASA. This was the first detailed climate model that took into account individual areas of the globe and what would happen with them.  His midrange scenario B was within 20% of the warming we are seeing today.

1990, first IPCC assessment.  Their business-as-usual model mean was accurate to within 15%.

So even going back 49 years, predictions (and then later models) have been remarkably accurate.