WH projects $1 trillion deficit for 2019

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

1. Weather and climate are very different things.
2. I do have direct contact with the ‘real experts’. It isn’t faith it is based on science. Faith belongs in a church.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it’s based on models. those models rely very heavily, on assumptions
about things like the atmospheres ability to absorb pollution, effect of ocean currents, etc. the more the
model relies on assumptions, the more speculative it is. which explains why their predictions have been so inaccurate. i’m not saying we don’t have a problem to deal with, but let’s be honest about how exact the science is.

you want a model that tells
you how many 65 year olds will
live to age 80, or how many times a
coin will
land on heads if you flip
it 10,000
times, that model is based on hard science. climate change models? not nearly as much hard science.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

it’s based on models. those models rely very heavily, on assumptions
about things like the atmospheres ability to absorb pollution, effect of ocean currents, etc. the more the
model relies on assumptions, the more speculative it is. which explains why their predictions have been so inaccurate. i’m not saying we don’t have a problem to deal with, but let’s be honest about how exact the science is.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No.
A large portion of our understanding is based on direct measurements compared against the instrumental record and against the geological record, including things like ice cores. I am a field scientist, I am inherently skeptical of models, but when models have the ability to align well with observations (see Stephan rahmasdorf’s 2007 paper on sea level rise) using data not used to make the model, I take notice.

This (below) is a nice explanation of how climate models work, particularly about how the point of the models is to show the trends and not make a prediction of a date/time/magnitude. But you know all this, we have been around and around on this before. The whole political forum is a circle jerk of the two sides just aiming at each other same #^&#^&#^&#^&. Boring.....

https://youtu.be/3v9aRQpumPA
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

No.
A large portion of our understanding is based on direct measurements compared against the instrumental record and against the geological record, including things like ice cores. I am a field scientist, I am inherently skeptical of models, but when models have the ability to align well with observations (see Stephan rahmasdorf’s 2007 paper on sea level rise) using data not used to make the model, I take notice.

This (below) is a nice explanation of how climate models work, particularly about how the point of the models is to show the trends and not make a prediction of a date/time/magnitude. But you know all this, we have been around and around on this before. The whole political forum is a circle jerk of the two sides just aiming at each other same #^&#^&#^&#^&. Boring.....

https://youtu.be/3v9aRQpumPA
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I need to remind you, they can’t hear you with their heads in the sand. Even that excellent and clear video explanation won’t be believed, but when that point of no return hits their children or their children’s kids smack dab in the face, they won’t hear the crying from six feet under.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

I need to remind you, they can’t hear you with their heads in the sand.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That doesn’t really help either Bob... 😁

I look at it this way. My modeling colleagues use various models to predict beach erosion in a storm. Now as the guy that measures the changes in morphology and processes during the storm, I tend to not agree with the predictions, of exactly how much, how fast and where the sand will move around.

However, when three or more of their models, using different assumptions and past data to train the model, all show erosion of a value pretty close to the measured, but off by a bit, it isn’t fair to just dismiss the models outright.

It is a real issue. I think it is incredible hubris to look at the planet right now, and think we haven’t had an impact. burning fossil fuels has altered the chemistry of the atmosphere in a way that traps more outgoing solar radiation and warms the planet. We need to be proactive and start thinking more about it. I wish they were wrong, particularly on sea level rise, but it just doesn’t seem to be the case.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Your correct you and others were crying about deficts. And now your not. Again turning wine into water ...
Its a predictable pattern
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I know I have started 10 threads over the past 8 years in this specific forum (and earlier but only the last 8 years are indexed). Ohhh, and most recent was in May, 2019. That recent enough for ya?

Originally Posted by wdmso

Yep everything equal keep convincing yourself its that simple
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It is that simple . Both sides do stupid sh!t, both sides do good sh!t, 'cept maybe the Squad.

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

I need to remind you, they can’t hear you with their heads in the sand.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I really wish we could all get along, but the other side just won't see things my way ; ) (/sarc)

On a side note, 5 years ago on the Seahorse going over to Cutty, PaulS and I figured we could fix 90% of the problems facing this country simply by working together.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by JohnR

I know I have started 10 threads over the past 8 years in this specific forum (and earlier but only the last 8 years are indexed). Ohhh, and most recent was in May, 2019. That recent enough for ya?
That response was directed at Jim and his current lack of outrage over Trump current deficits.. no you


It is that simple . Both sides do stupid sh!t, both sides do good sh!t, 'cept maybe the Squad.

Of course both sides do stupid stuff i dont see that cliche as helpful. Seeing it ignores the why is it happening

Originally Posted by JohnR

I really wish we could all get along, but the other side just won't see things my way ; ) (/sarc)

On a side note, 5 years ago on the Seahorse going over to Cutty, PaulS and I figured we could fix 90% of the problems facing this country simply by working together.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by JohnR

I know I have started 10 threads over the past 8 years in this specific forum (and earlier but only the last 8 years are indexed). Ohhh, and most recent was in May, 2019. That recent enough for ya?
That response was directed at Jim and his current lack of outrage over Trump current deficits.. no you


It is that simple . Both sides do stupid sh!t, both sides do good sh!t, 'cept maybe the Squad.

Of course both sides do stupid stuff i dont see that cliche as helpful. I feel it ignores the why

Originally Posted by JohnR

I really wish we could all get along, but the other side just won't see things my way ; ) (/sarc)

Me too however the Potus and his people and some supporters take any criticism of policy or Trump and twisted it into Anti Americanism protected at elected an regular citizen .. thats a hard pill for we to take

Originally Posted by JohnR

On a side note, 5 years ago on the Seahorse going over to Cutty, PaulS and I figured we could fix 90% of the problems facing this country simply by working together.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

No.
A large portion of our understanding is based on direct measurements compared against the instrumental record and against the geological record, including things like ice cores. I am a field scientist, I am inherently skeptical of models, but when models have the ability to align well with observations (see Stephan rahmasdorf’s 2007 paper on sea level rise) using data not used to make the model, I take notice.

This (below) is a nice explanation of how climate models work, particularly about how the point of the models is to show the trends and not make a prediction of a date/time/magnitude. But you know all this, we have been around and around on this before. The whole political forum is a circle jerk of the two sides just aiming at each other same #^&#^&#^&#^&. Boring.....

https://youtu.be/3v9aRQpumPA
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

not no. yes. that’s why NONE of the dire predictions have come true. if it was an exact science, philadelphia would oceanfront. and alaska would
be exporting pineapples. i build
predictive models for a
living, and i do it it an area where it’s almost am exact science.

why have none of the dire predictions come true? because the models were off. you can’t ever make that statement wrong. only a zealot would
try to make that wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

not no. yes. that’s why NONE of the dire predictions have come true. if it was an exact science, philadelphia would oceanfront. and alaska would
be exporting pineapples. i build
predictive models for a
living, and i do it it an area where it’s almost am exact science.

why have none of the dire predictions come true? because the models were off. you can’t ever make that statement wrong. only a zealot would
try to make that wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So, show me the models you mean. The one that predicted what you (rhetorically) have said. Prove it. Not Al Gore said, not so and so said, the actual scientific paper (or pop media summary of it is fine; Anthony Watts blog doesn’t count). Until then, you are dismissed on this and I am done arguing with you. Not one credible global climate model said anything close to that.

Have there been some misses on models, absolutely, but to be completely dismissive is just stupid, and ignoring it is zealotry.

The ones I read and look at, which represent the best science out there have not been anywhere close to that. See the IPCC reports for examples. Not hair on fire, these represent consensus estimates, and tend to be conservative. In fact many of the vocal climate scientists often think they are too conservative.

Sea level rise, in the extreme is predicted to be north of 13ft in New London by 2100 (read rapid drawdown of Greenland and west Antarctic ice). High value is something like 9ft. The middle of the road estimates are 3-6 feet. If those middle values are anywhere near correct, costs and losses will be catastrophic, well before 2100.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

So, show me the models you mean. The one that predicted what you (rhetorically) have said. Prove it. Not Al Gore said, not so and so said, the actual scientific paper (or pop media summary of it is fine; Anthony Watts blog doesn’t count). Until then, you are dismissed on this and I am done arguing with you. Not one credible global climate model said anything close to that.

Have there been some misses on models, absolutely, but to be completely dismissive is just stupid, and ignoring it is zealotry.

The ones I read and look at, which represent the best science out there have not been anywhere close to that. See the IPCC reports for examples. Not hair on fire, these represent consensus estimates, and tend to be conservative. In fact many of the vocal climate scientists often think they are too conservative.

Sea level rise, in the extreme is predicted to be north of 13ft in New London by 2100 (read rapid drawdown of Greenland and west Antarctic ice). High value is something like 9ft. The middle of the road estimates are 3-6 feet. If those middle values are anywhere near correct, costs and losses will be catastrophic, well before 2100.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don’t have the models. i know what the predictions were that have been released by the scientists. as i said, i have little doubt we need to change our ways, but as a scientist, when someone else is laughably wrong that consistently, they will
eventually lose credibility. i’m long, long past the point where
skeptical. 40 years ago we were facing an ice age, then global warming, then they defined it in the most vague possible term so that every possible result validated their theory...climate change.

i have solar panels on my house, and i spend more time in the woods getting dirty, and more
time on water getting soaked, than 98% of the planet, at least before we had kids that is. and i love animals more than 99.99% of the planet,,and cherish my kids futures more than 99.99% of the planet. so i’m heavily invested in a healthy planet .

but given their track record of making ridiculously wrong predictions, how can you not be skeptical? al gore got amazingly wealthy off this, and he doesn’t seem to be concerned, the only thing he’s unplugged in the last 20 years is his treadmill. if i was that wrong that often, no one would
listen to me. and they’d be right to laugh in my face. it’s still very very speculative because we are in unchartered territory here. we’ve never been in this path, so we can’t know what the effects will be.

accurate models ( like predicting how many times a coin will
turn up heads, or predicting mortality based on age), rely on a large set of data points to use to predict patterns and results, based on past observations. with this kind of climate change, we have no historical data to look at, this is all new. not easy to model
that way.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I don’t have the models. i know what the predictions were that have been released by the scientists. as i said, i have little doubt we need to change our ways, but as a scientist, when someone else is laughably wrong that consistently, they will
eventually lose credibility. i’m long, long past the point where
skeptical. 40 years ago we were facing an ice age, then global warming, then they defined it in the most vague possible term so that every possible result validated their theory...climate change.

i have solar panels on my house, and i spend more time in the woods getting dirty, and more
time on water getting soaked, than 98% of the planet, at least before we had kids that is. and i love animals more than 99.99% of the planet,,and cherish my kids futures more than 99.99% of the planet. so i’m heavily invested in a healthy planet .

but given their track record of making ridiculously wrong predictions, how can you not be skeptical? al fire hit amazingly wealthy off this, and he doesn’t seem to be concerned, the only thing he’s unplugged in the last 20 years is his treadmill. if i was that wrong that often, no one would
listen to me. and they’d be right to laugh in my face. it’s still very very skeptical, because we are in unchartered territory here. we’ve never been in this path, so we can’t know what the effects will be.

accurate models ( like predicting how many times a coin will
turn up heads, or predicting mortality based on age), rely on a large set of data points to use to predict patterns and results, based on past observations. with this kind of climate change, we have no historical data to look at, this is all new. not easy to model
that way.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Last points on this, I have work to do tonight, as I stay home and hang with the kids on Thursday's in the summer. If you provide the actual predictions by scientists and sources you meant I will reengage.

Good for you on all that. We are looking at solar when we need to replace our roof, but not yet.

We are not in uncharted territory in that there have been warm periods, with different causes (and times when CO2 was way higher for geologic reasons in the past). The geologic record provides a wealth of information to compare to the historic data and make predictions about the future. The track record, which you call laughable of the models in the last decade or to in particular has been very good. Again, show me what you meant otherwise and we can discuss them.

As far as global cooling, see the link below. Check out the number of scientific publications that show warming vs cooling. This idea that scientific consensus was global cooling has lingered because of some famous articles in a few different pop media magazines.

https://skepticalscience.com/What-19...l-cooling.html

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Last points on this, I have work to do tonight, as I stay home and hang with the kids on Thursday's in the summer. If you provide the actual predictions by scientists and sources you meant I will reengage.

Good for you on all that. We are looking at solar when we need to replace our roof, but not yet.

We are not in uncharted territory in that there have been warm periods, with different causes (and times when CO2 was way higher for geologic reasons in the past). The geologic record provides a wealth of information to compare to the historic data and make predictions about the future. The track record, which you call laughable of the models in the last decade or to in particular has been very good. Again, show me what you meant otherwise and we can discuss them.

As far as global cooling, see the link below. Check out the number of scientific publications that show warming vs cooling. This idea that scientific consensus was global cooling has lingered because of some famous articles in a few different pop media magazines.

https://skepticalscience.com/What-19...l-cooling.html

"If you provide the actual predictions by scientists and sources you meant I will reengage"

https://www.cato.org/publications/co...s-didnt-happen

https://thefederalist.com/2015/04/24...t-predictions/

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/...e-predictions/

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...lly-everything

http://humansarefree.com/2018/01/al-...edictions.html

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...d-did-not-end/

I can go on and on...

"We are not in uncharted territory in that there have been warm periods, with different causes"

The hell we aren't. We've never had this much of the world become industrialized, using fossil fuels at this pace in these amounts. Because that has never happened before, we don't know what the effects will be. It's not very complicated.

Solar panels - we've had an awful lot of dead birds thanks to the panels (thy keep nesting under there and then cook), and I've read that the panels are a huge mess to dispose of when they no longer function. So is it a net benefit to mother earth? I don't know. Again, the greenies didn't quite get it right, and that's a LOT simpler than trying to predict climate change impacts across all the complicated ecosystems on our planet.

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

not no. yes. that’s why NONE of the dire predictions have come true. if it was an exact science, philadelphia would oceanfront. and alaska would
be exporting pineapples. i build
predictive models for a
living, and i do it it an area where it’s almost am exact science.

why have none of the dire predictions come true? because the models were off. you can’t ever make that statement wrong. only a zealot would
try to make that wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

See head firmly planted, keep winning until your loose big.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device