Does a model that's claimed to predict a behavior and then fails to predict that behavior accurately model the behavior?
If your model you develop says your warhead will penetrate 4" or RHA and then fails to do so mean your model is sound? I hope that's not how you run your projects Jason because you're stiffing your funding sources.
What is accurate? 20% is pretty good agreement for an engineering model. Most computational models that aren't dealing with something that can be solved almost exactly generally only get good agreement because they have equation source terms specifically fit to experimental data.
The problem with trying to explain modelling to a layman, especially a layman who fancies themselves knowledgeable is that they have zero appreciation of what is actually involved and have no experience with which to match expectations.
This is of course a general problem of making science actionable for policy/political discussion. Thankfully politics is driven mostly by feel anyway so it doesn't really matter regardless of the topic.
You mean they picked and chose which physical aspects of a system they want to include in the model...
No, they use the best available knowledge at the time. The link between greenhouse gases is not model driven, it is emprical evidence driven for both anthro and non anthro sources.
The models that we've been getting shown have been described as saying that CO2 will make the climate warmer. That's what the IPCC policy conferences have said, repeatedly Jason. IT has not. Now, there is the fact that their models could be taken to not be very good at modeling a 15 year cycle of climate and are only good at longer term periods. BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT THE IPCC IS SAYING.
No, there is overwhelming empirical evidence that various gases can increase temperatures. The heat transfer and thermodynamics (basic bitch shit that IS straighforward). The models fail because various source terms are wrong. This is admitted in pretty much every paper I've seen. They are very clear about what they don't know.
Also fuck off, you've never read an IPCC report in detail. The shit you post makes that very clear.
Sure the various bits that they've modeled. But the models are incomplete. That's part of the problem. The'res more to it than what's modeled however due to the larger cycles involved.
Why are you stating obvious fact like it's some special magical skeptic knowledge? This is well acknowledged everywhere, including by the IPCC.
Is it? It nods to that, but it notes that there's a large gap in the paleo climate data sets and provides infilled data that differs from other data sets for paleoclimate variability. Aren't those early data sets part of the feed data for the climate models?
As is typical for you, you didn't actually read what you posted.
Sure Jason, it's not unstudied. However it's inclusion by climateolegist is a factor that's not modeled or properly understood by them. It IS studied by .
You're just throwing words in there. Of course solar ouput influences global temps. It is also and incredibly hard thing to model. Also there is zero empirical evidence based on solar measurements that would explain how the sun is driving what is by all accounts unprededented warming.
Science works by likelihoods. It is unlikely that recent warming is based on sun farts, as opposed to cow farts based on current emperical evidence.
It doesn't rule out that this is all just sun related, but the likelihood is LOW.
Also, asshole, I'm not pretending I'm a genius. I'm saying that I saw papers pointing to this and got to ruminating. That's why I said it was conjecture. That's unsupported by facts, I fully admit that. But people who ARE studying these aspects are starting to say that what was previously ignored is looking to be a substantial factor that's un accounted for.
Of course, no one is disputing that. You do realize that the papers are being written by the same people you think are shitty scientists though, right?
Also, the word substantial often means something different in scientific writing, as does "significant". I dislike those words but they are basically unavoidable when building narrative filler.
Well, asshole, why does the the fucking UN, your government, my government and every warmist talking head on TV SAY that it does? Why does the various IPCC papers SAY IT DOES? Do you have your head under a rock regarding this aspect of yet another part of the liberal narrative? Apparently so. Get out and smell the roses. What you're saying and what the Climate scientists are saying doesn't match.
I'm not sure what distortion box you listen through, but I have never heard anyone say that the models prove anything. The models show what the various data sources show: that the earth is warming and if you model greenhouse gas emission you recover a warming effect in models.
As a validation of data it is not bad by any reasonable scientific standard. Laymen apparently have unrealistic scientific standards.
Edited by Jason L, 28 September 2016 - 0014 AM.