Global warming could cut over 60 countries' credit ratings by 2030, study warns

[RickBradford]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

 

Models, by definition do not apply to the past. That's called history. If you are referring to increased knowledge about the past, that's still not modelling.

 

They don't fail, they become more accurate over time. Governments rely on medelling for ALL of their expensive decisions, whether financial or infrastructure planning.

*sigh* Models (or medels, if you prefer it) are an attempt to encapsulate past experience into a computer program in order to gain an understanding of the factors involved, so that we can predict the future.

 

I can hardly believe I have to write this, but if there is no past data to work off, then there can be no model that you can create. Even if you can model the past data to an accuracy of 100% with your model, that says nothing about its value as a predictive tool. This is well understood in the modelling world.

 

Yes, "Governments rely on medelling [sic] for ALL of their expensive decisions". Is that supposed to be a recommendation? Do you think governments are doing a good job? Have you ever heard of the Imperial College Covid model,  perhaps the most disastrous piece of botched prediction in recent history, climate predictions included.

 

[ozimoron]

 

What you said was "Models can be made 100% correct in modelling the past"

 

What you are now saying is this:

 

Quote

Models (or medels, if you prefer it) are an attempt to encapsulate past experience into a computer program in order to gain an understanding of the factors involved, so that we can predict the future.

 

[Climate models] predict how average conditions will change in a region over the coming decades.

 

https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/05/18/climate-models-accuracy/

 

Anyway, we are just arguing over semantics. Peace.

Edited March 29, 2021 by ozimoron

[RickBradford]

Just now, ozimoron said:

 

What you said was "Models can be made 100% correct in modelling the past"

 

What you are now saying is this:

 

 

Both statements are true.

 

In a simple situation with only a few variables, then you can construct a model which will model the past with an accuracy of 100%. That still may produce a predictive power of 0%. Most likely, it will do better than that.

 

In a massively complex, chaotic situation such as that as global climate, models inevitably have to simplify, to cut out certain variables which are deemed extraneous (in climate models, variables such as the sun and the clouds) to present a crude representation of climate which can approximate to the real world.

 

Those crude and incomplete models, which can only approximate to the past, are then used to predict the future and to inform policy worth trillions of dollars per year.

 

Do you begin to see the problem?

[Sujo]

Nice to see climate change deniers and conspiracy theorists put in their place by science.

 

they just cannot compete but its fun watching it.

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, RickBradford said:

Both statements are true.

 

In a massively complex, chaotic situation such as that as global climate, models inevitably have to simplify, to cut out certain variables which are deemed extraneous (in climate models, variables such as the sun and the clouds) to present a crude representation of climate which can approximate to the real world.

 

Those crude and incomplete models, which can only approximate to the past, are then used to predict the future and to inform policy worth trillions of dollars per year.

 

Do you begin to see the problem?

 

No. Climate modelling is much more than using past data to predict the future. I don't agree that they have to "inevitably simplify". Quite the opposite, they inevitably become more complex. Assumptions are only cut out when they are proved wrong, as some are. Nor do I accept that they are crude, merely incomplete. Modelling takes supercomputing. Models are predictive. By definition they will never be 100% accurate. There is no other way to predict the future besides modelling. Challenging the validity of modelling because of this simple reality is wrong headed.

[Chomper Higgot]

33 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Destroying the worlds ability to produce electricity and fuel is a worse risk to our civilisation and our lives.

Where has it been destroyed?

[RickBradford]

13 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

No. Climate modelling is much more than using past data to predict the future. I don't agree that they have to "inevitably simplify". Quite the opposite, they inevitably become more complex. Assumptions are only cut out when they are proved wrong, as some are. Nor do I accept that they are crude, merely incomplete. Modelling takes supercomputing. Models are predictive. By definition they will never be 100% accurate. There is no other way to predict the future besides modelling. Challenging the validity of modelling because of this simple reality is wrong headed.

There's so much wrong with that that it's hard to know where to begin.

 

All models use past data to predict the future. That is the nature of a model. Otherwise what you are talking about is a guess.

 

All models simplify. Climate models, in particular, have to simplify, because of the limits of our knowledge. Not all models, even simple ones, are (successfully) predictive.

 

There are plenty of ways to predict the future without modelling. Seeing what has happened in the past is a good judge.

 

No more correspondence on this particular topic will be entertained.

Edited March 29, 2021 by RickBradford

[Chomper Higgot]

37 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

*sigh* Models (or medels, if you prefer it) are an attempt to encapsulate past experience into a computer program in order to gain an understanding of the factors involved, so that we can predict the future.

 

I can hardly believe I have to write this, but if there is no past data to work off, then there can be no model that you can create. Even if you can model the past data to an accuracy of 100% with your model, that says nothing about its value as a predictive tool. This is well understood in the modelling world.

 

Yes, "Governments rely on medelling [sic] for ALL of their expensive decisions". Is that supposed to be a recommendation? Do you think governments are doing a good job? Have you ever heard of the Imperial College Covid model,  perhaps the most disastrous piece of botched prediction in recent history, climate predictions included.

 

 

Utter nonsense.

 

There are plenty of mathematical models running on real time data.

 

I’m more than a little surprised that somebody who claims to have read a lot of scientific papers is unaware of that fact.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 29, 2021 by Chomper Higgot

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

All models use past data to predict the future. That is the nature of a model.

 

I did not claim otherwise.

 

3 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

All models simplify. Climate models, in particular, have to simplify, because of the limits of our knowledge.

 

Prove that they do or quote scholarly articles which make this argument.

 

3 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

There are plenty of ways to predict the future without modelling. Seeing what has happened in the past is a good judge.

 

Not when it comes to climate change. There are no past precedents for what is happening to the Earth's climate

 

[Sujo]

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

Utter nonsense.

 

There are plenty of mathematical models running on teal time data.

 

I’m more than a little surprised that somebody who claims to have read a lot of scientific papers is unaware of that fact.

 

 

 

 

Im not. Considering there are posters that only post on this subject raises suspicions.

[RickBradford]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

There are plenty of mathematical models running on teal time data.

I assume you mean real time data. Apologies if I have misunderstood.

 

What were the parameters of the model when it started? Who set them? Who decided what variables of the data should be considered and which should be ignored?

 

Even with the most sophisticated AI learning tool, somebody has to set the start conditions, the parameters and interactions. Relying on these sort of models is fraught with pitfalls, the more so if we don't really know how they work. Essentially,  we are pushing these models far further than their capability, and then relying on them. That is a bad mistake.

 

To many people, running models of the earth's climate without including cloud cover would seem to be a major flaw, but that's where we're at. They have just started working on it, and I wish them the best of luck. (note the clever pun with the word 'nebulous')

 

https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2020/09/01/project-clouds-climate-modeling/

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

I assume you mean real time data. Apologies if I have misunderstood.

 

What were the parameters of the model when it started? Who set them? Who decided what variables of the data should be considered and which should be ignored?

 

Even with the most sophisticated AI learning tool, somebody has to set the start conditions, the parameters and interactions. Relying on these sort of models is fraught with pitfalls, the more so if we don't really know how they work. Essentially,  we are pushing these models far further than their capability, and then relying on them. That is a bad mistake.

 

To many people, running models of the earth's climate without including cloud cover would seem to be a major flaw, but that's where we're at. They have just started working on it, and I wish them the best of luck. (note the clever pun with the word 'nebulous')

 

https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2020/09/01/project-clouds-climate-modeling/

Why don’t you just accept your statement that all models use historical data is wrong?

 

Own your error or let it own you.

[RickBradford]

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Own your error or let it own you.

Gosh, how profound. Is that one of Gwynneth's?

 

The fact is, that all models by definition have to be set up with a knowledge of the past. That is, historical data. Which factors should we consider, and which should we ignore?

 

We can then update those models based on real-time data, using AI methods which we have specified.

 

But models do not - cannot - just emerge from thin air. That is absurd.

[BritManToo]

30 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

There are plenty of ways to predict the future without modelling.

Tarot cards, crystal balls and Ouija board spring to mind.

And probably equally useful and just as accurate as the climate change alarmists computer modelling.

Edited March 29, 2021 by BritManToo

[RickBradford]

1 minute ago, BritManToo said:

Tarot cards, crystal balls and Ouija board spring to mind.

And probably equally useful and just as accurate as the climate change alarmists computer modelling.

Yeah, but much cheaper.

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Gosh, how profound. Is that one of Gwynneth's?

 

The fact is, that all models by definition have to be set up with a knowledge of the past. That is, historical data. Which factors should we consider, and which should we ignore?

 

We can then update those models based on real-time data, using AI methods which we have specified.

 

But models do not - cannot - just emerge from thin air. That is absurd.

OK - so you cannot admit your black and white error.

 

And all the while there is this:

 

2 hours ago, RickBradford said:

 

I'm objecting to the story, not the model.

 

Methinks you are objecting for the sake of objecting even to the point of not accepting your own errors.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Tarot cards, crystal balls and Ouija board spring to mind.

And probably equally useful and just as accurate as the climate change alarmists computer modelling.

Well yes that’s correct.

 

The alternative to science and mathematics is superstition.

 

 

[ozimoron]

Meet the first species to go extinct because of climate change — it was tiny, cute, and fluffy

 

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/first-species-extinct-climate-change-bramble-cay-melomys-2019-2

[Yellowtail]

55 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Meet the first species to go extinct because of climate change — it was tiny, cute, and fluffy

 

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/first-species-extinct-climate-change-bramble-cay-melomys-2019-2

 

I wonder how they know it was the first? Are will still not discovering new species? How do we know that we have not already exterminated hundreds of species with climate change? 

 

 

[stevenl]

12 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

 

What governments are doing that?

I don't know of any government doing enough, do you?

[thaibeachlovers]

9 hours ago, ozimoron said:

Given that vehicles are only retained for approx 7 years in the case of cars,

????????

 

What about vans and trucks?

[ozimoron]

14 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

????????

 

What about vans and trucks?

 

I have no information but I don't see really old trucks around much either. Obviously, long distance trucks will be the last to go electric but city trucks and buses often already are. Most vehicles on the road are cars.

Edited March 29, 2021 by ozimoron

[placeholder]

In response to my query about this article, the final paragraph has been  drastically changed. It now reads:

 

"There are caveats. There are no scientifically credible quantitative estimates of how climate change will impact social and political factors," a blog article here released alongside the paper said. "Thus, our findings should be considered as conservative."

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climate-change-ratings/global-warming-could-cut-over-60-countries-credit-ratings-by-2030-study-warns-idUSKBN2BA2XW

[placeholder]

 

10 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

 

I wonder how they know it was the first? Are will still not discovering new species? How do we know that we have not already exterminated hundreds of species with climate change? 

 

 

Which makes it better?

[placeholder]

16 hours ago, RickBradford said:

At last a point on which we can fundamentally disagree.

 

I would say that tackling climate change - the way it is being done now - is a benefit for insurance companies, banks, organized crime, make-work bureaucrats and an assortment of tawdry climate hustlers ranging from the Wailing Naomis (Oreskes & Klein) over to that ludicrous old buffoon Michael "Piltdown" Mann.

 

Benefit to them: huge. Benefit to humanity: zero, tending minus.

 

14 hours ago, RickBradford said:

Ah yes, the "climate refugees". 

 

Let's not forget that the UN predicted 50 million climate refugees by the year 2010, then when the real total turned out to be zero, tried to disappear their prediction, but, lacking technical skill, left it in a cache for all to see.

 

Not to worry, though, the date has been redefined. Now it's 2050, according to the Organization for World Peace (good luck with that), and the number of "climate refugees" has risen to 1 billion.

 

I think that's a better estimate. Always put the date so far ahead as to be meaningless.

 

 

If you want to find climate change refugees just look at the USA's southern border:

Central America’s choice: Pray for rain or migrate 

Migration to the United States from Honduras and its neighboring “northern triangle” countries — El Salvador and Guatemala — has climbed in recent years. The reasons are complex, including poverty, unemployment and violence. But the increase in migration also coincides with the drought, which began in 2014, and those living in Central America’s so-called dry corridor, which is adjacent to El Rosario, say lack of food is the primary reason people leave, according to a United Nations report. 

15 hours ago, RickBradford said:

I think I shall begin a Be Nice to Greta week. She may be an appalling nincompoop, and easily manipulated, but she's probably the only prominent person on the planet who believes that climate change is a problem that can and must be solved. She probably really does worry about planet Earth, and the people on it.

 

This is not the case with other prominent figures in the debate. Take the case of Naomi Oreskes, the elder partner in the Wailing Naomis, who got rich from a 2010 book called Merchants of Doubt about climate change.

 

Her work was so bad that even Tom Wigley, one of the perps in the Climategate scandal, was moved to write “Analyses like these by people who don't know the field are useless. A good example is Naomi Oreskes’ work.” When the Climategate people, who know all about low standards, can't take your output seriously, then it's time to go do something else, like tending bar.

 

And let's not get started on Michael "Piltdown" Mann, who got rich off his silly Hockey Stick. He  could have shown the IPCC a croquet mallet and they would still have bought it ....

So much nonsense here and libel it's hard to know where to begin. Who has the time?  So just one lie of yours to dismember. Michael Mann's "silly Hockey Stick" has repeatedly been confirmed by independent researchers using a wide variety of data. .

 

"More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, support the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.^[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.^[14]"

In fact if you do deny the validity of the "hockey stick" that means you are a denialist of Anthropogenic Global Warning.

 

^{In fact, if you do deny the validity of the "hockey stick" that means you are a denialist of Anthropogenic  global warming.}

[Yellowtail]

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

 

Which makes it better?

 

No, it makes them liars. The said it was the first and they have know way of knowing that. 

 

At least they did qualify the due to climate change with "likely". 

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

 

If you want to find climate change refugees just look at the USA's southern border:

Central America’s choice: Pray for rain or migrate 

Migration to the United States from Honduras and its neighboring “northern triangle” countries — El Salvador and Guatemala — has climbed in recent years. The reasons are complex, including poverty, unemployment and violence. But the increase in migration also coincides with the drought, which began in 2014, and those living in Central America’s so-called dry corridor, which is adjacent to El Rosario, say lack of food is the primary reason people leave, according to a United Nations report. 

So much nonsense here and libel it's hard to know where to begin. Who has the time?  So just one lie of yours to dismember. Michael Mann's "silly Hockey Stick" has repeatedly been confirmed by independent researchers using a wide variety of data. .

 

"More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, support the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.^[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.^[14]"

In fact if you do deny the validity of the "hockey stick" that means you are a denialist of Anthropogenic Global Warning.

 

^{In fact, if you do deny the validity of the "hockey stick" that means you are a denialist of Anthropogenic  global warming.}

 

Yes, the "refugees" on the US southern boarder are a result of climate change. Political and economic climates have changed such that they are coming in record numbers.

[placeholder]

16 hours ago, ozimoron said:

 

No. Climate modelling is much more than using past data to predict the future. I don't agree that they have to "inevitably simplify". Quite the opposite, they inevitably become more complex. Assumptions are only cut out when they are proved wrong, as some are. Nor do I accept that they are crude, merely incomplete. Modelling takes supercomputing. Models are predictive. By definition they will never be 100% accurate. There is no other way to predict the future besides modelling. Challenging the validity of modelling because of this simple reality is wrong headed.

Well, they do have to simplify reality since they can't account for every little thing. But that said, climate  predicting the global effect of increased greenhouse gases isn't that difficult at all. We know that because a climatologist name Zeke Hausfather took a look at the climatological models created when climatology was a very young science. It turned out that most of the models he examined, 11 proved to be very accurate indeed. 

Even 50-year-old climate models correctly predicted global warming

Climate change doubters have a favorite target: climate models. They claim that computer simulations conducted decades ago didn’t accurately predict current warming, so the public should be wary of the predictive power of newer models. Now, the most sweeping evaluation of these older models—some half a century old—shows most of them were indeed accurate.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming

[BritManToo]

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Even 50-year-old climate models correctly predicted global warming

Odd then that it isn't any warmer, the seas haven't risen and even the ozone hole has disappeared.

climate disasters were predicted in the 1970s and earlier, not one of them happened ...... but maybe next year?

 

There's always 10 years left to save the planet ..........

 

Edited March 30, 2021 by BritManToo

[fredwiggy]

9 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Odd then that it isn't any warmer, the seas haven't risen and even the ozone hole has disappeared.

climate disasters were predicted in the 1970s and earlier, not one of them happened ...... but maybe next year?

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level Many people are in denial about global warming but the facts are there. I've seen this for over 30 years and told my friends what was going to happen after seeing the Amazon destroyed daily. A lot don't believe in God but God made the world a certain way. Man's destructive behavior has caused the extinction of 160 species in the last 10 years alone. Of course overpopulation has been the major cause of this, along with the habitat destruction by the rich for profit, but along with that habitat destruction has become the warming. Trees were put here for a reason, and cutting them down without re-planting has caused the disappearance of many species., along with climate change. This along with fossil fuel overuse has caused the warming, and melting of polar ice more than has ever happened in recorded history. This kind of denial helps the rich do what they do and get away with it. This denial will bring about our world's end .

Edited March 30, 2021 by fredwiggy