WARNING – Modern global temperatures (red) were homogenized with imaginary Vostok data for entertainment purposes only. See footnote*
Posted on 09/05/2014 9:47:14 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Amazing what they can discover with data from the just last 130 years. Hey but it must be right. It’s bootstrapped!
Finally, the study you’ve been waiting for. Now we can be absolutely certain — it’s practically proven beyond all doubt – your SUV changes the climate.
We just need to assume the climate models understand the climate and that there are no longer natural cycles at work AND that there are no effects from the sun from the solar wind, solar magnetic fields, or spectral changes. Easy. (Don’t look at the evidence, the pause or all the model failures.)
The new headline:
It’s at The Conversation - -the government funded site where government funded scientists discuss their bestest ideas.
WARNING – Modern global temperatures (red) were homogenized with imaginary Vostok data for entertainment purposes only. See footnote*
Obviously being 95% certain is not enough. Desperate believers are upping the ante. I guess all those people who were not convinced by 95% certainty will now switch over, blown away by the last 4.999% certainty that was missing before. It’s the third decimal place that does it.
PS: There’s a vote going on at NineMSM. See the poll in the middle of the page – Do you believe?
————————
*The graph contains satirical-risk. The blue line is Vostok. The red line is Vodka, “the globe” with polar-exaggeration. Don’t compare them under any circumstances.
The left is betting on the 0.001%.
I write computer software for a living.
I laugh my ass off when they say “computer models show...” because I can program computer models to show you anything you want them to show you.
This is not a hardware simulation, where you know the tolerances of materials to thousandths of in inch, this is data bases on TREE RINGS and ICE CORES.
You cannot measure 0.6 degree of temperature chance when your measuring device is inaccurate by plus or minus 5 or 10 degrees.
Thanks.
The other factor that never gets mentioned is that we DO NOT UNDERSTAND how a lot of these factors interact with each other. To be able to input data into the computer model, the authors are therefore compelled to take a SWAG (scientific wild-ass guess) at dozens to hundreds of factors.
They then input these guesstimates and the computer runs the algorythms with great rigor. What comes out the other end is a rigorously massaged guess, exactly what went in, except more impressive to numbskulls.
I agree with your humor, BTW. I’m not a computer scientist, but I have had a lot of experience working with computer estimating systems for insurance repairs.
Customers and many adjusters take the results and look at them as having been generated by computer, and therefore being “accurate” in some cosmic sense. Yet I, of course, can crank out any bottom line I choose simply by adjusting the parameters of what I input.
I make a fair amount of money on the side, BTW, by analyzing fraudulent estimates for insurers and showing exactly where and how the estimator cheated.
“You cannot measure 0.6 degree of temperature chance when your measuring device is inaccurate by plus or minus 5 or 10 degrees.”
Sure you can! It’s called imagination! :-).
Early in my career, our design team once got an EEPROM cell model from a rather well known semiconductor company. It had an insane number of simulation parameters. It turned out that this particular EEPROM cell magically created voltage! I mean, you could literally use it as a voltage source in a simulation :-).
After a day of fighting with this company (they were in denial at first), they found their error ... it was fixed and the simulations made sense :-). Sadly, they didn’t discover some alternative power source.
Of course, in academia, the ‘cells’ the comprise a simulation model of global climate are 100% perfect. They’d never make a single mistake in a cell since everyone is perfect in academia in my experience.
I’m sure all of their models have been rigorously verified and the software that simulates the climate of an entire planet, even a small one like Earth, is, without question, 100% perfect since those people are complete geniuses.
Question those models and the nerdy guys wearing glasses will flash their SS badges, go full fascist, and attempt to belittle you into believing in their religion or kill you.
Those people are sooooooooooo much smarter than us peons. Don’t dare question them. Bloody dogooders those climate scientists at the UN ... bloody dogooders they are indeed.
I’m not a math person but a sample size of 60 years of results or 60 data points seems too small to be able to get a 99.99% confidence.
I predict with 99.99 per cent certainty that between zero and 365 hurricanes will strike the US during 2014.
Here's the headline.
"Rockpile Reports That US Could Have As Many As 365 Hurricanes"
"Model accuracy claimed as 99.99 percent"
I leave you to write the remainder of the news flash... ;-)
A simple test to see if a predictive model is accurate is to plug in current data and see how close the future predictions come to actual observations. All of the climate models fail miserably at this test.
Har har har! Wolf Blitzer will be all over it.
Severe Atlantic hurricane season predicted! (Just like every other year).
Do we already have a Global Climate Czar? Seems like the UN would have already made one.
Well, you see it's like this. Since I only copied Rockpile's exhaustive research data, being appointed to any position by oBlomba on that basis just allows me to fit in with the other notable plagiarizers in his realm...
But somehow I feel sullied by the appointment.. ;-)
Speaking of hurricanes, after Katrina weren’t the warmists predicting terrible hurricanes annually for the forseeable future? That was almost of decade ago, and there’s been nothing like Katrina to hit the southern coastline since. Where are the terrible hurricanes?
I thought you would...:)
We know for certain that the rings of modern trees do not correlate well with temperature, however, we are expected to believe that the rings of ancient trees DO correlate well with temperature. We are also expected to be OK with the Warmists excluding any tree ring data that does not show warming. Yes they actually have done that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.