Yes, it’s that time of year, again. I think we all need something to take our mind off both Donald Trump and politics - these threads are about the scientific, not political, aspect of climate change. So, I’d like to start off by saying something about science and theory. We just saw, for the past year, a lot of really, really smart people use past election data to project the results of the 2016 presidential election. And boy, were they were dead wrong. Not just wrong - dead wrong. This wasn't a failure of science, as some might say, but rather a failure of theory - a failure of models. Anyway, here to start off our discussion are some points which will effect our 2016-2017 winter: Fading El Niño effects Emerging La Niña And for some perspective: it snowed in Saudi Arabia the other day: And it hit subfreezing temperatures in Tehran:
As I've said, there's a way better than 50-50 chance that you will survive the first round of Russian roulette. So let's play! Since it's not a sure thing by any means. . . . The result of global warming could be even worse than the result of Trump's brain.
Seriously, though: first round of Russian roulette is only a 17% chance. . . . I dunno: global warming is maybe like, >17% chance? Whatever.
In my little corner of OR, we have now set a record for consecutive days without a freeze. 2015 is now in second place and 2014 is relegated to third.
Right because predicting how people will vote or show up at polls is exactly the same thing as predicting climate. By the way, the models you are mocking predicted that unexpected places would get colder WEATHER such as snow. You see you dumbass - cold air likes to generally sink and make high pressure. It tends to do this over land and sea areas that are cold. What areas might be cold? How about areas of ice? Ice at the north pole for instance - ice that is cold and white - that reflects light back to space. Oh what happens when that ice melts - you have water - water that is warmer than ice and that absorbs heat which cause the air above it to rise. So that space cold air no longer sinks down at the poles...but it has to sink...somewhere.... Think Rojo. Think. Use that brain to actually think - where does cold air sink when it can't sink over a ice covered ocean because the ice is gone. Where will it sink??? If the arctic is warmer then some place else must be colder. Here's a hint Rojo - you better bundle up.
It is very ironic that you look at weather data for one year as if it is meaningful; but you probably think weather data from the past hundred years is "just a blip." Forgive me if I'm wrong. . . .
Which models had Clinton winning 100% of the time? The most respected projection had Trump with a 30% chance. If the weatherman says there's a 30% chance of rain, and it rains, do you say the model failed?
I do not know of any models which had 100% confidence in Clinton winning. Do you know of any? I would say if a model projected 90% confidence for a Clinton win, then yes, it was a failure of that theory - of that model. Science did not fail. I think that is what is important to understand. A lot of really smart people got it wrong. The principals they used to create their electoral models are the same principals other researchers use to make their models. So you decided to neglect the discussion points? I think these phenomena certainly affect the climate. NASA seems to agree. I bet I could train a 5-year old to pick out every major El Niño and La Niña with just the first two data points plotted below. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
How is it a failure if one of the very possible outcomes occurred? It's only a failure if they projected a zero percent chance of the actual result happening. The most robust model had Trump winning 3 out of 10 times. If Altuve gets a hit, you don't question the usefulness of his batting average as a predictor of what will happen when he's batting. You're confusing the media's certainty with what the model actually said.
Yep. Waiting in the weeds. On a side note, it's amusing that most deniers/skeptics assume global warming is a pretty like a picture linear increase.
