Climate change: July set to be world's warmest month on record

[Tippaporn]

8 hours ago, placeholder said:

You seem to be laboring under the belief that because sea levels are on average rising in relation to the land, that everything by the beach should already be inundated. Got any predictions from climatologists studying the rise in sea levels who say that? I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for a fact-based response from you.

That report, developed by several federal agencies – including NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the U.S. Geological Survey – expect significant sea level rise over the next 30 years by region. They projected 10 to 14 inches (25 to 35 centimeters) of rise on average for the East Coast, 14 to 18 inches (35 to 45 centimeters) for the Gulf Coast, and 4 to 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters) for the West Coast.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3232/nasa-study-rising-sea-level-could-exceed-estimates-for-us-coasts/

Let's meet again in 27 years.

The new estimates . . .

 

Revisions, revisions and more revisions as the crystal ball is in a never ending state of being massaged and tweaked with new data replacing old data, new theories replacing old theories, and the entire predictive modeling in constant flux.

The high-end global mean sea-level rise is now projected to be up to 1.3-1.6 meter for strong warming in 2100.

We focus on the year 2100 because there is significantly more information available for this time horizon than for any other date in time. Moreover, the physical understanding decreases significantly  (LOL) after this time horizon.

https://www.uu.nl/en/news/new-high-end-estimate-of-sea-level-rise-projections-for-2100-and-2300

Let's meet again in 77 years.

Table 2 indicates that the projected temperature has a large effect on the projected high-end SLR during the 21st century and beyond. It also shows that the long timescales associated with slow processes in the ocean and ice sheets provide a strong incentive for mitigation. An SLR of 10 m by 2300 would be extremely challenging and costly, suggesting the need for a near-universal retreat from the present coastline including the most developed and valuable areas, or alternatively, protection/advance on a scale that is hard to envisage, even where artificial protection is the norm today.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2022EF002751

Let's meet again in 277 years.

Note:  Let's not forget that the assumption is that this rise is due strictly and only due to climate change.  What's the old axiom?  Assumption is the mother of all f-u's.  You and others, placeholder, love and worship your assumptions and take them to be the absolute word of God Science. 

The Prediction-Explanation Fallacy:  A Pervasive Problem in Scientific Applications of Machine Learning

 

However, previous authors have focused mainly on the other side of the issue—namely, the fact that “classical” statistical models optimized for accurate explanation tend to perform badly in prediction tasks (more on this later). My goal is to redress this imbalance, by explicitly discussing the limitations and pitfalls of predictive models when they are used in the context of scientific explanation. As I demonstrate below, the prediction-explanation fallacy can lead to distorted and misleading conclusions—not only about the results of a single analysis, but also about the robustness and replicability of the phenomenon under study.

 

The Fallacy of Forecasting in a Complex World

“Statistical prediction is only valid in sterile laboratory conditions, which suddenly isn’t as useful as it seemed before”- Gary King

Another holy assumption you guys like to make - despite the fact that the global ecosystem is barely understood it is understood well enough to make claims of climate change due to human activity with absolute certainty.

[Tippaporn]

44 minutes ago, placeholder said:

What don't you understand about the fact that the position of gun manufacturers is not analogous to the position of  the fossil fuel industry. Manufacturing firearms is not especially harmful. But the extraction and refining of oil and gas is.

"Manufacturing firearms is not especially harmful."

Why the qualifier?

[BritManToo]

6 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Another holy assumption you guys like to make - despite the fact that the global ecosystem is barely understood it is understood well enough to make claims of climate change due to human activity with absolute certainty.

Predictions for sea level rises made in the 1990s (30 years back) didn't happen.

Why would anyone believe predictions (made by the same people on the same subject) would be any better.

 

Fool me once shame on me ............

If these guys weren't all working for the government, they would have been sacked and never worked again.

[Tippaporn]

You couldn't have had time to read all of the linked materials before reacting with a laugh.  Typical. 

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

"Manufacturing firearms is not especially harmful."

Why the qualifier?

Because all manufacturing probably entails some harms even if just to workers on occasion.

[placeholder]

6 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

That report, developed by several federal agencies – including NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the U.S. Geological Survey – expect significant sea level rise over the next 30 years by region. They projected 10 to 14 inches (25 to 35 centimeters) of rise on average for the East Coast, 14 to 18 inches (35 to 45 centimeters) for the Gulf Coast, and 4 to 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters) for the West Coast.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3232/nasa-study-rising-sea-level-could-exceed-estimates-for-us-coasts/

Let's meet again in 27 years.

The new estimates . . .

 

Revisions, revisions and more revisions as the crystal ball is in a never ending state of being massaged and tweaked with new data replacing old data, new theories replacing old theories, and the entire predictive modeling in constant flux.

The high-end global mean sea-level rise is now projected to be up to 1.3-1.6 meter for strong warming in 2100.

We focus on the year 2100 because there is significantly more information available for this time horizon than for any other date in time. Moreover, the physical understanding decreases significantly  (LOL) after this time horizon.

https://www.uu.nl/en/news/new-high-end-estimate-of-sea-level-rise-projections-for-2100-and-2300

Let's meet again in 77 years.

Table 2 indicates that the projected temperature has a large effect on the projected high-end SLR during the 21st century and beyond. It also shows that the long timescales associated with slow processes in the ocean and ice sheets provide a strong incentive for mitigation. An SLR of 10 m by 2300 would be extremely challenging and costly, suggesting the need for a near-universal retreat from the present coastline including the most developed and valuable areas, or alternatively, protection/advance on a scale that is hard to envisage, even where artificial protection is the norm today.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2022EF002751

Let's meet again in 277 years.

Note:  Let's not forget that the assumption is that this rise is due strictly and only due to climate change.  What's the old axiom?  Assumption is the mother of all f-u's.  You and others, placeholder, love and worship your assumptions and take them to be the absolute word of God Science. 

The Prediction-Explanation Fallacy:  A Pervasive Problem in Scientific Applications of Machine Learning

 

However, previous authors have focused mainly on the other side of the issue—namely, the fact that “classical” statistical models optimized for accurate explanation tend to perform badly in prediction tasks (more on this later). My goal is to redress this imbalance, by explicitly discussing the limitations and pitfalls of predictive models when they are used in the context of scientific explanation. As I demonstrate below, the prediction-explanation fallacy can lead to distorted and misleading conclusions—not only about the results of a single analysis, but also about the robustness and replicability of the phenomenon under study.

 

The Fallacy of Forecasting in a Complex World

“Statistical prediction is only valid in sterile laboratory conditions, which suddenly isn’t as useful as it seemed before”- Gary King

Another holy assumption you guys like to make - despite the fact that the global ecosystem is barely understood it is understood well enough to make claims of climate change due to human activity with absolute certainty.

The fact is that the model has predicted the consequences of climate change better than any alternative hypothesis proposed. And your use of "absolute certainty" is just more of your nonsense. Modern science is statistically based. So there can always be a one in a million or a billion chance of something being wrong. But at a certain point such reservations are just silly. Functionally speaking it's a done deal. But if you don't believe in the statistical underpinning of modern science, I suggest you take all your savings and invest in a lottery.

[BritManToo]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

So there can always be a one in a million or a billion chance of something being wrong.

Or in the Climate prediction game a 99% chance (from past predictions) of the new prediction being wrong.

[Tippaporn]

2 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Predictions for sea level rises made in the 1990s (30 years back) didn't happen.

Why would anyone believe predictions (made by the same people) would be any better.

 

Fool me once shame on me ............

Predictions can be possible but only if and when conditions do not change.  And as nothing ever remains the same the validity of such predictions are limited to the very near term future.  Most long term predictions are predicated on nothing changing in the long term.  An impossibility.  Again, the ecosystem is a highly complex system and I would heartily laugh at anyone claiming they understand it so thoroughly that they are able to make long term predictions.

Predictions out to 2050, let alone 2300, are worthless.  But for the uninitiated they do the trick of fooling them to believe such nonsense to be possible.  There are a number of posters here who believe in this fallacy of prediction.  I won't name names as it's unnecessary to do so.  

[Tippaporn]

7 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Because all manufacturing probably entails some harms even if just to workers on occasion.

My God, life carries risks.  When did you discover that? 

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Or in the Climate prediction game a 99% chance (from past predictions) of the new prediction being wrong.

Even 50-year-old climate models correctly predicted global warming
Study debunks idea that older models were inaccurate

https://www.science.org/content/article/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming

[Tippaporn]

5 minutes ago, placeholder said:

The fact is that the model has predicted the consequences of climate change better than any alternative hypothesis proposed. And your use of "absolute certainty" is just more of your nonsense. Modern science is statistically based. So there can always be a one in a million or a billion chance of something being wrong. But at a certain point such reservations are just silly. Functionally speaking it's a done deal. But if you don't believe in the statistical underpinning of modern science, I suggest you take all your savings and invest in a lottery.

I guess you didn't read any of the links.  Typical. 

Your trademark punchline:

You've got nothing.™

But when someone does provide rational counter arguments you don't even bother reading any of it.  What a joke.  Everyone here is hip to it, though.  You're only here to parrot what the MSM convinces you to be the truth. 

You're not a climatologist, nor a researcher, nor do you have access to any of the raw data.  So all of your information comes from sources you trust.  And as long as you trust it (trust being another holy assumption) then what they tell you is Gospel.  It is beyond your comprehension that anyone dare not trust your "trusted" sources. 

[placeholder]

8 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Predictions can be possible but only if and when conditions do not change.  And as nothing ever remains the same the validity of such predictions are limited to the very near term future.  Most long term predictions are predicated on nothing changing in the long term.  An impossibility.  Again, the ecosystem is a highly complex system and I would heartily laugh at anyone claiming they understand it so thoroughly that they are able to make long term predictions.

Predictions out to 2050, let alone 2300, are worthless.  But for the uninitiated they do the trick of fooling them to believe such nonsense to be possible.  There are a number of posters here who believe in this fallacy of prediction.  I won't name names as it's unnecessary to do so.  

Thanks for the sophomoric generalizations. Predictions are worthless? You mean the validity of predictions can't be confirmed by how they've performed in the past?. I think you've pretty much undermined all of science with such a comment. Or would have, were it to be taken seriously. 

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

I guess you didn't read any of the links.  Typical. 

Your trademark punchline:

You've got nothing.™

But when someone does provide rational counter arguments you don't even bother reading any of it.  What a joke.  Everyone here is hip to it, though.  You're only here to parrot what the MSM convinces you to be the truth. 

You're not a climatologist, nor a researcher, nor do you have access to any of the raw data.  So all of your information comes from sources you trust.  And as long as you trust it (trust being another holy assumption) then what they tell you is Gospel.  It is beyond your comprehension that anyone dare not trust your "trusted" sources. 

You characterize your argument as rational?  Given that not to trust the science only makes sense were there some vast worldwide conspiracy that coordinated the false results of doctored research, I'd say that it would take a hugely gullible person not to accept the results of the research. The kind of people who might believe that, say, elections were fraudulent, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. 

 

[Tippaporn]

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Even 50-year-old climate models correctly predicted global warming
Study debunks idea that older models were inaccurate

https://www.science.org/content/article/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming

Have you ever noticed that fact-checkers most always go in one direction?  They're not really in the business of discerning any truth.  Their business model is strictly to "debunk" any and all opposing narratives.

Just a silly question, I know, but have you personally "debunked" that yourself?  Did you do any research with the actual raw data and objectively determine for yourself whether or not these older models actually did correctly predict global warming?

Or, is this what they're telling you and as you have no way of fact checking yourself you simply accept what they tell you at face value.  Surrendering all of your precious trust?

Actually, the two questions are rhetorical as we already know the answers. 

[Tippaporn]

6 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Thanks for the sophomoric generalizations. Predictions are worthless? You mean the validity of predictions can't be confirmed by how they've performed in the past?. I think you've pretty much undermined all of science with such a comment. Or would have, were it to be taken seriously. 

Still haven't read what I linked to.  Typical.  Isn't it fraudulent to demand evidence for opposing claims only to then ignore that evidence entirely out of hand?  Are you pulling my leg here? 

[placeholder]

Just now, Tippaporn said:

Have you ever noticed that fact-checkers most always go in one direction?  They're not really in the business of discerning any truth.  Their business model is strictly to "debunk" any and all opposing narratives.

Just a silly question, I know, but have you personally "debunked" that yourself?  Did you do any research with the actual raw data and objectively determine for yourself whether or not these older models actually did correctly predict global warming?

Or, is this what they're telling you and as you have no way of fact checking yourself you simply accept what they tell you at face value.  Surrendering all of your precious trust?

Actually, the two questions are rhetorical as we already know the answers. 

Once again, for your arguments to hold water would necessarily mean that there is a vast worldwide conspiracy among scientists to manufacture false research. You don't seem to have any appreciation of what the odds are that such a program could be successfully executed. But then, you don't seem to have much appreciation of probability in general.

[placeholder]

Just now, Tippaporn said:

Still haven't read what I linked to.  Typical.  Isn't it fraudulent to demand evidence for opposing claims only to then ignore that evidence entirely out of hand?  Are you pulling my leg here? 

If I criticize someone's claim that they can predict the future with astrology or tarot cards, do I have to study astrology or tarot cards to dismiss those claims? It's not incumbent upon me to read the material you offer when the thought processes  behind your objections are so clearly irrational.

[Tippaporn]

15 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Once again, for your arguments to hold water would necessarily mean that there is a vast worldwide conspiracy among scientists to manufacture false research. You don't seem to have any appreciation of what the odds are that such a program could be successfully executed. But then, you don't seem to have much appreciation of probability in general.

". . . vast worldwide conspiracy . . . "

Of course not.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

[placeholder]

Just now, Tippaporn said:

". . . vast worldwide conspiracy . . . "

Of course not.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

Big green against small oil, tiny gas, and miniscule coal.

Do you understand that by making such an allegation you only confirm that your thought processes are risibly conspiratorial?

Got some evidence that Big Green is financing this alleged conspiracy?

Once again, you've got nothing.

[Tippaporn]

13 minutes ago, placeholder said:

If I criticize someone's claim that they can predict the future with astrology or tarot cards, do I have to study astrology or tarot cards to dismiss those claims? It's not incumbent upon me to read the material you offer when the thought processes  behind your objections are so clearly irrational.

Published in

Towards Data Science

Marco Del Giudice
University of New Mexico
The Prediction-Explanation Fallacy:  A Pervasive Problem in Scientific Applications of Machine Learning

 

". . . the thought processes  behind your objections are so clearly irrational."

Yes, these people are irrational lunatics thinking only irrational thoughts.  But then isn't anyone who counters your narrative?  Isn't discrediting your go-to tactic?  Discrediting for the mere crime of having countering evidence?  Debunking for the sole sake of being right?  Are you at all interested in truth, placholder?  I don't see it.

You ask for countering evidence, placeholder, and then disingenuously dismiss it out of hand giving faulty, illogical reasons.  You truly must think we're stupid here. 

[Tippaporn]

7 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Big green against small oil, tiny gas, and miniscule coal.

Do you understand that by making such an allegation you only confirm that your thought processes are risibly conspiratorial?

Got some evidence that Big Green is financing this alleged conspiracy?

Once again, you've got nothing.

You forgot your TM.  Someone's gonna steal that from you one day and you'll have to pay to use it.  Just sayin'.

They are men with household names like Jeff Bezos (net worth: $113 billion, according to Forbes), Mike Bloomberg ($77 billion) and Bill Gates ($106 billion), along with other billionaires who have lower profiles but equally large climate ambition. Their role as shadow policymakers has grown amid the evolution of the Biden administration climate agenda and the recent U.N. Climate Change Conference in Egypt, known as COP27, where their projects were on prominent display.

From one of you're most venerable and trusted sources, the Washington Post.  So eat it up.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/12/12/billionaires-climate/

"Do you understand that by making such an allegation you only confirm that your thought processes are risibly conspiratorial?"

Now what were you saying?

[placeholder]

7 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Published in

Towards Data Science

Marco Del Giudice
University of New Mexico
The Prediction-Explanation Fallacy:  A Pervasive Problem in Scientific Applications of Machine Learning

 

". . . the thought processes  behind your objections are so clearly irrational."

Yes, these people are irrational lunatics thinking only irrational thoughts.  But then isn't anyone who counters your narrative?  Isn't discrediting your go-to tactic?  Discrediting for the mere crime of having countering evidence?  Debunking for the sole sake of being right?  Are you at all interested in truth, placholder?  I don't see it.

You ask for countering evidence, placeholder, and then disingenuously dismiss it out of hand giving faulty, illogical reasons.  You truly must think we're stupid here. 

The article you cite isn't even relevant. It's about machine learning. Which is far different from how humans process information.

[Tippaporn]

16 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Big green against small oil, tiny gas, and miniscule coal.

Do you understand that by making such an allegation you only confirm that your thought processes are risibly conspiratorial?

Got some evidence that Big Green is financing this alleged conspiracy?

Once again, you've got nothing.

Of course Bill Gates is an outlier in the billionaire class who believes that Big Green is not a money maker.

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

You forgot your TM.  Someone's gonna steal that from you one day and you'll have to pay to use it.  Just sayin'.

They are men with household names like Jeff Bezos (net worth: $113 billion, according to Forbes), Mike Bloomberg ($77 billion) and Bill Gates ($106 billion), along with other billionaires who have lower profiles but equally large climate ambition. Their role as shadow policymakers has grown amid the evolution of the Biden administration climate agenda and the recent U.N. Climate Change Conference in Egypt, known as COP27, where their projects were on prominent display.

From one of you're most venerable and trusted sources, the Washington Post.  So eat it up.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

You forgot your TM.  Someone's gonna steal that from you one day and you'll have to pay to use it.  Just sayin'.

They are men with household names like Jeff Bezos (net worth: $113 billion, according to Forbes), Mike Bloomberg ($77 billion) and Bill Gates ($106 billion), along with other billionaires who have lower profiles but equally large climate ambition. Their role as shadow policymakers has grown amid the evolution of the Biden administration climate agenda and the recent U.N. Climate Change Conference in Egypt, known as COP27, where their projects were on prominent display.

From one of you're most venerable and trusted sources, the Washington Post.  So eat it up.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/12/12/billionaires-climate/

"Do you understand that by making such an allegation you only confirm that your thought processes are risibly conspiratorial?"

Now what were you saying?

environment/2022/12/12/billionaires-climate/

"Do you understand that by making such an allegation you only confirm that your thought processes are risibly conspiratorial?"

Now what were you saying?

What I've said before. There's nothing in this article that questions the validity of the science. Or even suggests in any way that the science is corrupted. The influence of these billionaires consists of what technologies they choose to invest in to mitigate climate change. A different matter entirely.

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Of course Bill Gates is an outlier in the billionaire class who believes that Big Green is not a money maker.

You got a problem with capitalism?

[Tippaporn]

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

The article you cite isn't even relevant. It's about machine learning. Which is far different from how humans process information.

Again, it's so typical of you, placeholder, to find a single point upon which you can then dismiss the entire article and the evidence it provides.  I call that disingenuous.

ABSTRACT

In this paper, I highlight a problem that has become ubiquitous in scientific applications of machine learning methods, and can lead to seriously distorted inferences about the phenomena under study. I call it the prediction-explanation fallacy.  The fallacy occurs when researchers use prediction-optimized models for explanatory purposes, without considering the tradeoffs between explanation and prediction.

Climate change predictions are based on astrology?  Tarot cards?  Or computer modeling?  This shouldn't be a difficult question to answer.

It's obvious you still did not read the entire paper.  Which goes back again to your screaming demands of countering evidence only to dismiss such evidence by skimming to find the single point which you can use to discredit or dismiss the evidence.  You're playing a game, here, placeholder.

[Tippaporn]

9 minutes ago, placeholder said:

You got a problem with capitalism?

TOTAL DEFLECTION!!



And the crowd cheers!!! 

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

Again, it's so typical of you, placeholder, to find a single point upon which you can then dismiss the entire article and the evidence it provides.  I call that disingenuous.

ABSTRACT

In this paper, I highlight a problem that has become ubiquitous in scientific applications of machine learning methods, and can lead to seriously distorted inferences about the phenomena under study. I call it the prediction-explanation fallacy.  The fallacy occurs when researchers use prediction-optimized models for explanatory purposes, without considering the tradeoffs between explanation and prediction.

Climate change predictions are based on astrology?  Tarot cards?  Or computer modeling?  This shouldn't be a difficult question to answer.

It's obvious you still did not read the entire paper.  Which goes back again to your screaming demands of countering evidence only to dismiss such evidence by skimming to find the single point which you can use to discredit or dismiss the evidence.  You're playing a game, here, placeholder.

What don't you understand about the fact that this addresses the problems of educating computers? It's not about how scientists work. The problem with these machines is that they can come up with absurd conclusions unchecked by engagement with reality. Scientists research is an actual examination of reality. Research is based on other reality checked research.  Reality provides the check. And this ties in to your ridiculous belief in a vast scientific conspiracy fueled by billionaires' cash. You've got nothing.

 

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

TOTAL DEFLECTION!!



And the crowd cheers!!! 

Funny that someone who claims to have no use for consensus invokes a cheering crowd, albeit an imaginary one, to support a rebuttal.

A rebuttal that in no way address the argument but is simply a bald statement. And the fact that you put it in the typographical equivalent of shouting shows just how little you've got. In fact, you've got nothing.

[Tippaporn]

11 minutes ago, placeholder said:

What I've said before. There's nothing in this article that questions the validity of the science. Or even suggests in any way that the science is corrupted. The influence of these billionaires consists of what technologies they choose to invest in to mitigate climate change. A different matter entirely.

Deflecting to the totally unrelated point of "There's nothing in this article that questions the validity of the science." when the subject matter is strictly about scientific predictions.

 

"The influence of these billionaires consists of what technologies they choose to invest in to mitigate climate change. A different matter entirely."

Feigning to not understand politics and investment opportunities and the dynamics between the two!!



And the crowd cheers uproarilously!