DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
You have misinterpreted the use of the word "our".
Our, as in "we as a people":
"The purpose of the models that humans build is to make more and more accurate predictions, so we can plan ahead."
New Category suggestion. Climate change.
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
Our, as in "we as a people":
"The purpose of the models that humans build is to make more and more accurate predictions, so we can plan ahead."
Yep. Pretty sure that was an intentional misunderstanding, so he could get a slam in on Dave.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I also took note of the reference to "defensive". I feel the discussion is getting deliberately dragged to an emotional place where ad homs live.
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
CNY Skeptics: "The Science of Change: Evidence-Based Methods for Effective Activism"
Unread post by hardindr » Sun Oct 21, 2018 12:52 pm
"The Science of Change: Evidence-Based Methods for Effective Activism"
Presentation by Debbie Goddard
Sponsored by CNY Skeptics
Time: Wednesday, November 14, 2018, 7:00 PM
Where: Manlius Library, One Arkie Albanese Ave, Manlius, NY, 13104, USA
Event is Free and Open to the Public
Light refreshments will be served
Please contact 1-315-636-6533 or email info@cnyskeptics.org for more information
Presentation Summary:
The goal of activism is to change things, but how do we know what works? In a challenging political climate ripe for protests and petitions, it's important to consider the effectiveness of our actions. Drawing from the experience of seasoned activists and organizers, Center for Inquiry outreach director Debbie Goddard will outline evidence-based methods for building campaigns and developing functional goals, objectives, strategies, tactics, and messaging so that our activism actually works.
Presenter Bio:
Debbie Goddard is the director of campus and community programs and the director of African Americans for Humanism at the Center for Inquiry (CFI), where she has worked for 12 years. She facilitates workshops and gives presentations on group organizing, campaign-building and activism, diversity and outreach, student activism, the secular movement, and other topics for local groups and national conferences across North America. She has also been the lead organizer for conferences including Women in Secularism 4 and the annual CFI Leadership Conference. In 2012, she led a notable billboard campaign featuring black atheists, and in 2009, she helped coordinate an international campaign highlighting blasphemy laws and free expression.Before working for CFI, Debbie participated in freethought groups in the greater Philadelphia region and helped organize and support campus groups internationally as a student volunteer. She has also been involved with LGBTQ issues and progressive activism.
Central New York Skeptics (CNY Skeptics) is a community organization dedicated to the promotion of science and reason, the investigation of paranormal and fringe-science claims, and the improvement of standards for science education and critical-thinking skills.
Unread post by hardindr » Sun Oct 21, 2018 12:52 pm
"The Science of Change: Evidence-Based Methods for Effective Activism"
Presentation by Debbie Goddard
Sponsored by CNY Skeptics
Time: Wednesday, November 14, 2018, 7:00 PM
Where: Manlius Library, One Arkie Albanese Ave, Manlius, NY, 13104, USA
Event is Free and Open to the Public
Light refreshments will be served
Please contact 1-315-636-6533 or email info@cnyskeptics.org for more information
Presentation Summary:
The goal of activism is to change things, but how do we know what works? In a challenging political climate ripe for protests and petitions, it's important to consider the effectiveness of our actions. Drawing from the experience of seasoned activists and organizers, Center for Inquiry outreach director Debbie Goddard will outline evidence-based methods for building campaigns and developing functional goals, objectives, strategies, tactics, and messaging so that our activism actually works.
Presenter Bio:
Debbie Goddard is the director of campus and community programs and the director of African Americans for Humanism at the Center for Inquiry (CFI), where she has worked for 12 years. She facilitates workshops and gives presentations on group organizing, campaign-building and activism, diversity and outreach, student activism, the secular movement, and other topics for local groups and national conferences across North America. She has also been the lead organizer for conferences including Women in Secularism 4 and the annual CFI Leadership Conference. In 2012, she led a notable billboard campaign featuring black atheists, and in 2009, she helped coordinate an international campaign highlighting blasphemy laws and free expression.Before working for CFI, Debbie participated in freethought groups in the greater Philadelphia region and helped organize and support campus groups internationally as a student volunteer. She has also been involved with LGBTQ issues and progressive activism.
Central New York Skeptics (CNY Skeptics) is a community organization dedicated to the promotion of science and reason, the investigation of paranormal and fringe-science claims, and the improvement of standards for science education and critical-thinking skills.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
't'was not my intention to slam anyone, I was simply seeking information.
However when i asked for information and was told to study the science---I took umbrage.
I have studied several available climate models and found them wanting.
In no small part, most models were based on the climate of the past 20-30-40-... years.
Ok so many of the models were fairly accurate over short time spans---However when exceeding 10-15 years the models tended to be less accurate- and experienced increasing inaccuracies as time progressed-----now, take that out farther and you have inaccuracies that negate the value of the model.
Here is an analogy:
If you have a rifle that shoots a 3 moa group the inaccuracy at 50 yards is only about 1,5705 inches---still a good kill shot if you aimed well.
Take that out to 100 yards any you may be off by about 3.141 inches---still lethal, but the likelihood that you will have to track a wounded animal increases.
Take that out to 400 yards and you could miss by 15.705 inches= do not take the shot!
another analogy
If you aim to fly from washington to Los Angeles and you are off by 2 minutes, you will miss your destination by about 85 miles.(for short distances, the inaccuracy wouldn't matter that much--however, for long trips--carry extra fuel)
It seems that basing models on the recent past(short term)climate is problematic if long range accurate predictions are the goal.
I have yet to find a model that does not drift into increasing errors with time.
If you know of a model that seems to have better longer range predictability--------by all means share that knowledge.
If not(most likely?) then models are to be considered "works in progress". Or, just theoretical in nature.
..............
more questions than answers is the norm.
Are we in a superinterglacial?
When will the ice return?
If preceding interglacials were usually warmer than the holocene(we know this to be true of mis5 and 11), should we expect a natural raise in temperature to approximate the average previous interglacial high temperatures?
OR:
Are succeeding interglacials usually colder than the preceding interglacials? If so, then are we heading to an ice earth?
Is that something that we can mitigate?
However when i asked for information and was told to study the science---I took umbrage.
I have studied several available climate models and found them wanting.
In no small part, most models were based on the climate of the past 20-30-40-... years.
Ok so many of the models were fairly accurate over short time spans---However when exceeding 10-15 years the models tended to be less accurate- and experienced increasing inaccuracies as time progressed-----now, take that out farther and you have inaccuracies that negate the value of the model.
Here is an analogy:
If you have a rifle that shoots a 3 moa group the inaccuracy at 50 yards is only about 1,5705 inches---still a good kill shot if you aimed well.
Take that out to 100 yards any you may be off by about 3.141 inches---still lethal, but the likelihood that you will have to track a wounded animal increases.
Take that out to 400 yards and you could miss by 15.705 inches= do not take the shot!
another analogy
If you aim to fly from washington to Los Angeles and you are off by 2 minutes, you will miss your destination by about 85 miles.(for short distances, the inaccuracy wouldn't matter that much--however, for long trips--carry extra fuel)
It seems that basing models on the recent past(short term)climate is problematic if long range accurate predictions are the goal.
I have yet to find a model that does not drift into increasing errors with time.
If you know of a model that seems to have better longer range predictability--------by all means share that knowledge.
If not(most likely?) then models are to be considered "works in progress". Or, just theoretical in nature.
..............
more questions than answers is the norm.
Are we in a superinterglacial?
When will the ice return?
If preceding interglacials were usually warmer than the holocene(we know this to be true of mis5 and 11), should we expect a natural raise in temperature to approximate the average previous interglacial high temperatures?
OR:
Are succeeding interglacials usually colder than the preceding interglacials? If so, then are we heading to an ice earth?
Is that something that we can mitigate?
Last edited:
The science is the information. How can you take umbrage at the only possible answer to your question?
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
Seriously: You think that that was the only possible answer to my question?
hahahahaha(did you intend that to be a joke?)
I suppose that it is possible to understand that "our models" meant all of mankind's models----------(sloppy use of the language? Do you know how many different climate models currently exist?)
Allow me to state categorically: THEY AIN'T MY MODELS
(at least, not until someone comes up with a good one)
And, the last time i checked, I am one of all of mankind.
So, they cannot be all of mankind's models. (are we going to switch to 90something %mode here?)
.......................
allow me to reiterate
If you know of a climate model which you think will accurately predict things like regional climates based on quantified inputs; Please share.
Last edited:
This is priceless.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Nor mine, now that you mention it.
This came across as passive-aggressive:
I interpreted it to mean you wanted climate change to be justified to you from the ground up.
It's possible that was a misinterpretation.
You asked several questions, to which I earlier responded with several accessible sources of valid information.
Then you somehow got fixated on this "model" problem, to which there is no simple, fits-all-cases answer. It seems to me not so much a request for information as a series of objections to the perceived inadequacy of some models taken entirely out of their context.
One might almost suspect that the purpose of asking at all was for an excuse to be miffed.
I understand your complaint ok!
But I wonder have you thought it through far enough?
see graph below (SRC):
Do you dispute the veracity of this graph?
If so why?
Do you dispute the data that IS currently available ( putting aside predictions for the moment)
If so why?
Do you believe that a massive increase in CO2 as demonstrated in the graph could destabilize any regular climate cycles the world had established over millions of years?
If so then what would YOU predict knowing what you know?
Also, it has been a while since I started this tread about a New category and so far no site staff have responded. I can only assume given that this topic of Climate change is as popular as it is (5 pages now) that there is little to NO capacity to change the forums structure and operation..
The owners may be "absent" or other wise unavailable.
Even installing new moderators may prove problematic.
A potato that is too hot perhaps?
I would have hoped that James R would have commented even if to suggest that the issue was under active discussion.
The owners may be "absent" or other wise unavailable.
Even installing new moderators may prove problematic.
A potato that is too hot perhaps?
I would have hoped that James R would have commented even if to suggest that the issue was under active discussion.
Last edited:
Wow, that's a very petty and argumentative approach.
If someone refers to 'our space program' will you object to that too, since you never worked on it?
Maybe it is best to ask the open question:
What would it take for humans to destabilize the worlds Ice age cycles?
What would it take for humans to destabilize the worlds Ice age cycles?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
You are certainly entitled to an opinion.
But not all opinions are equal.
Can you defend your opinion with enough research and science to hold it up against the preponderance of evidence that is stacking up in favor of climate change?
You wouldn't do that here; you'd publish your work in a science journal, and get backing from other scientists.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
Jeez......................................................................................
I was not discussing climate change.
I was addressing the inadequacies of current models.
Models are improving
and
with any luck
and a damned sight more field work---and a blending of that field work into the models...
It seems possible that we may yet see something approaching predictive accuracy
maybe?
...............................................................
Currently:
Models are only representations of reality and are therefore full of uncertain numbers, many of which cannot be defined experimentally. Even elaborate representations based on good process-based understanding are uncertain. In other words, model simulations have an enormous number of degrees of freedom. We can think of this as wiggle room.
So how much wiggle room do we have in current models, assuming we have decided what the key processes are? In a model with, conservatively, 20 important and uncertain processes, each associated with a single uncertain parameter, the model outputs can be sampled from 20-dimensional space. This is a hypercube with around a million corners. ...
Scientists appear to have no option but to carry on this way, despite evidence that our progress toward reducing climate model uncertainty is very slow and knowing that we are overlooking many uncertainties. Models with higher complexity will undoubtedly have greater fidelity for some problems, but it is doubtful whether such model “elaboration” will get us any closer to reducing the overall uncertainty. In fact, it may have the opposite effect...
https://eos.org/opinions/climate-models-are-uncertain-but-we-can-do-something-about-it
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
"the preponderance of evidence that is stacking up in favor of climate change"
So then, not addressing the subject of the thread and not requesting information?
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
Climate has to do with longer ranges than weather---
--and
People use models to forecast climate changes--
--and
It seems that very few people really know much about the models
ergo my field of inquiry
(did I get any direct answers to model questions?)
.................
How many models are based on the equable climate model?
........................
on climate
How much does the climate change from one interglacial to another?
Will the proposed 400kyr cycle have a likely effect on this interglacial?
If so: What would you expect from that effect?
Last edited:
People use models to forecast all kinds of things, from college enrollment to the spread of influenza to fish migration. Here is another example https://www.rms.com/blog/2015/06/22/what-is-catastrophe-modeling/
It's a tool for projecting a trend into the future, according to known and foreseeable variables.
Not the one you demanded, but some. #49, #55, #59, #61, #62, #66, #75, #76, plus at least half a dozen links where you might have found the answer
How the hell should we know?
Maybe you're asking the wrong people. Non-experts can only give you general answers. Only a few people ever need to know a special branch of any science, or how to use the specialized tools of their area of research. What would the spottily-informed layman make of a complex, specialized model?