Greg F

That is what error bars are for. If your model is useful reality will fall inside the error bars. Tom ... this is just meaningless. Doesn't matter. Concerning climate models, even if the theory were perfect there is no way to calculate the results from first principles (see Navier–Stokes). On top of that climate is nonlinear and chaotic. Therefore the output is highly sensitive to small changes in initial conditions. Since climate data is so sparse we can't even get the initial conditions correct. If you can't make a prediction you can't test the theory. The financial models are very much like climate models. They are nothing more that sophisticated curve fit models. IOW, they are statistical models that have no predictive power for out of sample data. Therefore "black swan" (out of sample data) always produces unpredictable results. It isn't the complexity, semiconductor manufacturers have very complex physical models based on first principles that work very well. They also have tons of data to validate their models. The climate models are primarily statistical models. They are tuned (curve fit) to mimic past climate. Various tuning’s include aerosols, clouds, water vapor, and albedo. The reality is that we have little to no data to start with. For example, we have no idea the volume or distribution of aerosols from the 70’s. Clouds, even if we had detailed data, are too small to model due to model grid size. Another issue which Dr. Pat Frank expands on is error propagation which is well worth a listen. (43 minutes)

Peer review only means somebody else looked it. It doesn't mean it is right. Einstein published over 300 papers of which only 1 was peer reviewed. Claude Shannon, the father of information theory, published in the Bell system journal (not peer reviewed). His paper, A Mathematical Theory of Communication, would not get published in any journal today due to its length. You would be hard pressed to find 5 papers in the last century that have had as profound an effect. I posted this a few pages back. In true Popper fashion it compares the prediction(s) with what has happened. Reality. Please note the important thing is the rate of change. The models are warming 2 to 3 times faster than reality. This isn't the only thing wrong, it just happens to be one of the more obvious. If the model fails to match reality then the theory is wrong. It is that simple.

It appears someone is unfamiliar with Karl Popper and falsification. I would suggest reading the whole thing and pay special attention to his discussion of "confirming evidence" what is often times called confirmation bias. Also notice there isn't a word about 'consensus' having anything to do with science.

Chain saw and string trimmer. When filling them it helps to have 3 hands. One to hold the gas can, one to pull back the spring loaded gas nozzel, and one to hold what I am trying to fill. Having only 2 hands the gas doesn't always go where intended. Second issue is if the can is sitting in the sun. Pressure builds up and if I forget to release the pressure before pouring the gas comes out fire hose style. If I do release the pressure then it kind of defeats the purpose of the 'environmentally friendly ©' gas can by releasing the fumes it was designed to prevent. I have three 5 gallon, one 2.5 gallon, and two 1 gallon. One of the 1 gallon is the 'environmentally friendly ©' type. The 5 gallon cans are used for the lawn mower and snowblower. The good 1 gallon goes to camp for the lawnmower (non-ethanol gas). The 'environmentally friendly' © can gets filled with non-ethanol gas/oil mixture for the string trimmer and chain saw. The 2.5 gallon I picked up at a yard sale for the nozzle that fits my 5 gallon cans. Now you are probably wondering why this guy has so many gas cans. Then again maybe you're not but I am going to tell you anyway. The 5 gallon cans I bought new for $5 a piece (my age is showing). Back in the day I used to go through the local reservation where gas was 50 ¢ to 80 ¢ per gallon cheaper. Two fill ups and they were paid for. Now they are used when redeeming gas credit we get from the grocery store (X cents/gallon) that is good for up to 20 gallons. My wife bought the 'environmentally friendly ©' can (don't ask) and I bought the 1 gallon originally for the chain saw and string trimmer which was before we bought the camp. I don't remember ever hearing that happen. Gasoline has a fairly narrow fuel to air ratio that it will ignite (1.3% to 7.6%).

Gas cans. I have lost more gasoline with one of the EPA mandated gas cans then I ever lost with the traditional can.

Projection.

If you had an up to date plot you would see it is recovering. Either way the climate changes as it always has and the sea ice is just another data point. The fact is you avoided the previous plot I posted clearly showing the 'calculations' by the climate models don't match reality. In normal science we would say the hypothesis has been falsified. The sea ice was just a diversion to avoid dealing with failure of the 'calculations'.

We interrupt this comic for a public service anouncement to show you the 'calculations' vs. reality. We now return you to your regularly scheduled Chicken Little © program.

So you are saying the NYT was lying when they wrote:

Then read the CBO report and make an argument. "Your source sucks" is not an argument, it's an emotional outburst. https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/costestimate/americanhealthcareact_0.pdf

Pretty sure you would have been suckered into the Eugenic consensus too.

You would die of asphyxiation. Not much different than putting a plastic bag over your head.

Good for plant life.

Still nothing substantive from GoBills808 on the topic at hand.