New Antarctic sea-ice record

[CJ]

Absolutely, and they remain relevant today in that big picture understanding I mentioned.

Their relevancy is in how thousands of scientists can get it wrong, and have, frequently. I always mention that, because when national geographic and many other publications ran their spreads on projected global cooling, global famine, etc. they were cramming it down the throats of Americans. And they were dead fucking wrong.

[exlude]

their relevancy is in how thousands of scientists can get it wrong, and have, frequently.

If that's all you want to take away from it, okay. The data still exists, however, and must be explainable in modern models.

[TexasDevilDog]

People need to stop taking single studies as the final word on anything. Thousands of studies come together to form an overarching picture. But most people get their "understanding" from news blurbs, sometimes posted in political forums and are only looking for vindication.

Agreed, the problem is that many people have short memories and only think of their recent experiences. A bigger problem is people are trying to draw direct linear relationships to weather and climate events.

I have learned from my science and engineering education that, there is no phenomenon in the universe that can be modeled with a simple linear function. We use simple linear functions to explain cause and effect relationship because they are easy to understand. These functions turn out to be the least imperfect representation of the relationship but they tend to have errors. To minimize these errors, functions are only valid in a defined domain.

Example: Kepler's laws of planetary motion works for all the planets but fails for stars at a galactic scale and also on the atomic level.

[CJ]

If that's all you want to take away from it, okay. The data still exists, however, and must be explainable in modern models.

Models are not science. They are glorified guesses. There are the sole vehicle used to procure funding for science with little to no current evidence.

[exlude]

Their relevancy is in how thousands of scientists can get it wrong, and have, frequently. I always mention that, because when national geographic and many other publications ran their spreads on projected global cooling, global famine, etc. they were cramming it down the throats of Americans. And they were dead fucking wrong.

National Geographic is not a peer reviewed journal. They, along with major news outlets, sell headlines. It's rare to see as universal concurrence in science as you do in popular science.

[CJ]

National Geographic is not a peer reviewed journal. They, along with major news outlets, sell headlines. It's rare to see as universal concurrence in science as you do in popular science.

That's just one of the spreads. Thousands of scientists and recognized science journals posted the same things. How quickly we forget I suppose. It's the same bag of shit, just sold in a different manner.

[exlude]

Models are not science. They are glorified guesses. There are the sole vehicle used to procure funding for science with little to no current evidence.

Uh, models are employed in attempts at scientific understanding all the time. Your comment kind of scarily edges on "theories are just guesses". In fact, models are just attempts to apply current theories to actual situations.

[TexasDevilDog]

Models are not science. They are glorified guesses. There are the sole vehicle used to procure funding for science with little to no current evidence.

Models are science. As I stated above, models are an imperfect representation of a relationship. A simple electrical model relationship for a resistor is R=E/I, where E is voltage and I is current. But resistors vary over temperature, some perhaps over pressure and humidity, but the model has no variables for temperature, pressure or humidity. It is not prefect. The function might not even be valid with very high voltage or very high current, where the resistor heats up excessively.

[exlude]

Agreed, the problem is that many people have short memories and only think of their recent experiences. A bigger problem is people are trying to draw direct linear relationships to weather and climate events.

I have learned from my science and engineering education that, there is no phenomenon in the universe that can be modeled with a simple linear function. We use simple linear functions to explain cause and effect relationship because they are easy to understand. These functions turn out to be the least imperfect representation of the relationship but they tend to have errors. To minimize these errors, functions are only valid in a defined domain.

Example: Kepler's laws of planetary motion works for all the planets but fails for stars at a galactic scale and also on the atomic level.

100% agreed. Far too often people want to apply Occam's razor. The problem with that is that you often have to shoulder too many assumptions.

[CJ]

Uh, models are employed in attempts at scientific understanding all the time. Your comment kind of scarily edges on "theories are just guesses". In fact, models are just attempts to apply current theories to actual situations.

95% error is not science. Adjust your model to be sensational and politicized, get money.

[TexasDevilDog]

Good gawd, resizing please.

A model that is wrong is a bad model, but it is a model none the less.

Models are designed with the understanding and information at hand. They do not always work.

Here is a simple one that does not work. Acceleration of gravity on earth is stated to be 9.81m/s/s but in fact not to be true everyplace on the surface of the earth.

Here is NASA's model for gravity, including latitude and longitude but only at sea level.

[CJ]

Good gawd, resizing please.

A model that is wrong is a bad model, but it is a model none the less.

It just goes to show they are simply for procuring grants and funding. Because their science is based on very little evidence, and you can't scare people with the here and now, you have to use something that can't be proven, hence models. In many areas (such as you have cited) models make perfect sense. I am strictly speaking in regards to climate. I spent several semesters in geology classes in college and you might be surprised just how different their view is. We only hear from the politicized climatologists, because the media controls who we hear, and the facts are proving how absurd these predictions and models are.

[TexasDevilDog]

It just goes to show they are simply for procuring grants and funding. Because their science is based on very little evidence, and you can't scare people with the here and now, you have to use something that can't be proven, hence models. In many areas (such as you have cited) models make perfect sense. I am strictly speaking in regards to climate. I spent several semesters in geology classes in college and you might be surprised just how different their view is. We only hear from the politicized climatologists, because the media controls who we hear, and the facts are proving how absurd these predictions and models are.

Showing a model to be in error is what peer review science is about. That is how science progresses. Claiming models are not part of science will just garner ridicule.

Now that their models are shown to be wrong, they will have to figure what effects in nature were not accounted for.

I do not believe the science is settle for or against. I want to see more science but not politically motivated science.

[exlude]

It just goes to show they are simply for procuring grants and funding. Because their science is based on very little evidence, and you can't scare people with the here and now, you have to use something that can't be proven, hence models. In many areas (such as you have cited) models make perfect sense. I am strictly speaking in regards to climate. I spent several semesters in geology classes in college and you might be surprised just how different their view is. We only hear from the politicized climatologists, because the media controls who we hear, and the facts are proving how absurd these predictions and models are.

The chart you posted is an interesting one, and I'd question a lot of its statistical methodology. To start, most climate models allow for wide variances in their predictions, so seeing single lines is interesting.

Nevertheless, using these models to continue to correct understanding is important. A "where did we go wrong" criticism is always applicable in developing theories. I don't think anyone outside of political pundits is saying, "we fully understand this whole situation".

[exlude]

I just noticed that that chart was created by Dr. Roy Spencer who has some questionable interests and has long been known as more a pundit than a scientist.