Posted on 08/20/2015 9:06:28 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
A good example of building a model is one that perfectly fits the historical data of the Stock Market. Trust me, give me enough parameters and I can build an equation (* See Note Below) that maps to the DJ Industrial average with in an inch over that past 50 years. Essentially a perfect fit.
The question is: How good is that model when it comes to telling where the market will be a year from now.
The answer is: About as good as your best guess. Maybe not quite that good.
* Note Below: OK, I confess I couldn’t actually build that equation but I could have at one time and that all that counts. ;)
If they pull an algore and extend that y-axis by 10, that line will be almost straight up!
Al Gore has been trying to extend his y axis for eons now.
Didn’t he recently ask to have his 2nd chakra released?
My dog, given a choice of hot, cold, wet, dry and picking the season is more accurate than the Democrat Scientific community.
You’re comparing apples and oranges:
The stock market doesn’t influence the climate.
The climate influences the stock market.
The stock market isn’t primarily based on physics.
Climate is based on physics.
The stock market relies on human nature.
The climate is nature.
Bookmark
“If they pull an algore and extend that y-axis by 10, that line will be almost straight up!”
Al Gore: “You want to see straight up? Let me align my second chakra an I’ll show you straight up! (That’s right sweety, lower. mmmmm, perfect)”
You’re comparing apples and oranges.
++++
The stock market is primarily driven by somewhat predictable economic and potentially modellable trends. Human nature plays a role but not nearly as much as earnings and projected earnings,
Climate too is driven by potentially modellable physical laws. Do we really understand those laws and the complex interaction of these laws well enough to accurately model climate? I don’t think so.
Oranges an Tangerines maybe.
Probably the only thing wrong with UN supercomputers where climate modeling is concerned amounts to “garbage in, garbage out.”
And, the article lost me right here:
” increases in greenhouse gases like CO2 contribute to that, and that we’ve got good reason to think humans are contributing to that increase.”
How are humans contributing to that increase? Wouldn’t increased CO2 be a benefit, for plant growth (both natural, and man-groomed food crops)? What caused the Earth to cool way back when? What caused it to go into an ice age? What caused it to come OUT of an ice age? And repeat the process?
MAN is NOT the cause, OR solution, to “climate change”.
Earnings is a small difference between two large numbers - revenue and expenses. Consequently projected earnings are particularly volatile.Climate too is driven by potentially modellable physical laws. Do we really understand those laws and the complex interaction of these laws well enough to accurately model climate? I don’t think so.
I am suspicious of the climate models because they seem wildly complex on the one hand, and seem to depend on a simple, arbitrary assumption of the sensitivity of temp to CO2 on the other. Apparently this model did not start out with a desired conclusion - high sensitivity to CO2 - embedded as a planted axiom before the calculations ever start.
One for Two. Not bad.
Released? Why? Was it doing hard time and trying to get paroled for good behaviour?
That was the phrase utter to a massage therapist by ManBearPig (release my 2nd chakra) as he attempted to force her hands to his nether regions.
Of course he was requesting a happy ending.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.