New Antarctic sea-ice record

[exlude]

I always looked at it from the point of view that I am challenging the idea that someone else has figured it out.

Fair enough, as long as it's past "see, I told you it was all bullshit" or the ad hominem drivel that we already saw here.

[Broncojohnny]

Any science that challenges your preconceived concept that you have it all figured out.

I always looked at it from the point of view that I am challenging the idea that someone else has figured it out.

[Ruffdaddy]

By the way...I have always agreed with climate change as it's well known and unstoppable. Global warming is a bunch of bull shit in hopes of getting a carbon tax.

[Ruffdaddy]

Models when used by politicians always serve one goal and it's rarely tied closely to the benefit of science.

I use models all the time (FEM/FEA included) to analyze new designs with great accuracy. Now if you were to give a politician those models, they would apply it to damn near everything and find a way to make it a new tax...

[jyro]

What I put in print every time I see this crap:
The climate has been changing on Earth for 4 billion years. We are here because of climate change. Where ever you are on Earth at another time it has been the bottom of a sea, and in another time under hundreds of feet of ice. The only constant in Earth's climate IS change.

Don't waste valuable resources to try and prevent unstoppable, natural climate change. Life on Earth that survives climate change adapts to that change.

[exlude]

So an educated guess. Best guess

That's an amazingly simplified way to put it.

[Gasser64]

Your comment kind of scarily edges on "theories are just guesses". ns.

So an educated guess. Best guess

Theories are proven wrong all the time

the·o·ry
ˈTHēərē,ˈTHi(ə)rē/
noun
noun: theory; plural noun: theories

a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
"Darwin's theory of evolution"
synonyms: hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presupposition; More
opinion, view, belief, contention
"I reckon that confirms my theory"
principles, ideas, concepts;
philosophy, ideology, system of ideas, science
"modern economic theory"
a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based.
"a theory of education"
an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action.
"my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged"

[Nash B.]

That graph makes many of them look pretty close to the measured temperatures.

[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.

[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".

[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.

[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]

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]

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.

[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.