Maggie's Farm

In a complex system, this is absolutely 100% true.

A good comparison is supply and demand - which as an explanatory theory is fairly well developed. We can even model it, and if we choose good parameters feel that we can estimate eventual price and supply outcomes rather sufficiently.

However, supply and demand in a closed system is different from one in complex environment. Suddenly, other externalities and unknowns come into play. So we pick and choose the portions of "all things being equal" and what we decide are the most important to making our model work the way we want it to.

I have seen these fall apart when events occur that are little understood or unexpected - sensitive conditions.

The explanatory theory remains intact, the model fails.

Determinism is also in play with supply and demand. It's the external issues, or issues you're unfamiliar with, that are important, and that's why your comment is not applicable.

Do you know EVERY SINGLE factor that comes into play in a climate? Every single one and exactly how it plays a role? If you do, you probably can swing on over and pick up your Nobel.

A hundred years ago, the Outer Banks were lightly populated. Today they are a vacation community and vibrant. I considered buying there 20 years ago, as a rental/vacation property.

I would have done very well. But I'd have had massive costs, too. The problem isn't focusing on the coastal plains. Marginal properties everywhere become valuable when primary properties become fully developed. I use the term "marginal" for the Outer Banks because that's exactly what they were 100 years ago.

Just because they are valuable today doesn't mean we have to gear national policy to a minority of people who live in a plain which they know is susceptible to flooding. Remember the Mississippi flooding of the 90's which we were supposedly able to prevent with levees, dikes and various other ACofE projects? That worked....poorly (in the long run)

Did I say every house on the Outer Banks was a vacation home? I said it's a vacation community. Would you dispute this?

You, like so many of your brethren, choose the data points you wish to argue, pick them carefully, overemphasize their role, and then make your case. Sadly, the case is false.

I didn't say every home was a vacation home. I said it was a vacation COMMUNITY. This means there are many full-time residents, but it swells during peak seasons. I used this as a basis because supposedly the Outer Banks should be underwater right now (if original theories of warming were correct). In fact, the Outer Banks have gradually been creeping closer to the mainland over many millenia, and while they get wash outs during big hurricanes, they have yet to really fall beneath the supposedly rapidly rising seas.

A secondary point, which you blithely ignored, is whether doing anything to help the people there is worthwhile. As we learned with the Mississippi, when we try to alter outcomes, the unintended consequences are costly and exceed the value we thought we'd gain. Entire towns had to move and the farming communities had to change which crops they raised, as well as how they farmed the lands in the floodplain.

The learning from the Mississippi should be this - learn how to work within the changes that occur naturally, rather than forcing earth to do the things you believe it should be doing for you.

I forgot to mention. I intended to buy there in 1991. Had I done so my capital gains today would've made me a wealthy man (on paper). The problem with this?

I would have incurred massive costs from at least 3/4 hurricanes. Now I would likely have had hurricane insurance, so the money wouldn't be the issue. But have you ever had to manage a home during and after a hurricane, even if you have the cash to do so? I have, in the house I live in.

It's not a pleasant experience, and I knew (in 1992) that the area was prone to large storms (many called "local hurricanes" due to the fact that the Labrador Current meets the Gulf Stream about 10 miles offshore, leading to lots of turbulent weather). After interviewing people in the area, I realized that vacation home owners get short shrift from the locals, who hog all the state/federal assistance and manage it to their benefit. This was part of the long-term shift I had toward Libertarianism, when I learned that money meant to help all typically only goes to help the few who manage and control it.

That's immaterial to the Warming issue - but it does play directly into the economic costs of "doing something" when natural events come into play.

I opted to not invest there, and deemed the annual loss of rental for a vacation an improvement over the hassles of being a landlord in a vacation community. A community which should've been washed out completely by now. But I'm sure you've got reasons why that was wrong, but should be right in....oh....20 years - right?

To begin, Go Orange (if it's warming, there will be plenty of Orange groves).

This is an excellent breakdown of the processes which allow the AGW crowd to spin their story.

In some of the back and forth I've had with Zachriel, it's clear the warmists don't really understand the nature of the skeptics complaints.

For one, not all skeptics simply say "Warming is NOT happening." In fact, Dr. Mercury spent a good deal of time pointing out that it is. I agree that there is some happening, as well. The point of disagreement is on other issues.

These are:
1. What kind of warming? Is it man-made? I'd argue that while there is some evidence of man-made impact, it's at best minor. However, if real proof of large man-made impacts were available, there is still point two:
2. How bad is it likely to be? The catastrophic scenarios all grow from the data models. The modelling, however, is inconsistent and often misleading. We are told the worst case scenarios are the most trumpeted simply because we need to be scared into action, which raises another point:
3. Why do we need to do anything? Climates change all the time, with or without man's impact. The earth goes on. It is man's own sense of self that infuses this discussion, the belief that we must continue to exist exactly as we are, with some climate similar to the one we have today. I'd argue that we can survive in many different climates, and even if we can't - so what? Plenty of animals have gone extinct with or without man....it's part of the overall cycle.

We have deluded ourselves into believing that our primary goal is to keep things exactly as they are. It's odd that "Liberals", who usually seek to change things, are looking to keep climate unchanged (or relatively the same). After all, "Conservatives" like things just the way they are, and typically consider change to be unwelcome. I know this is a sarcastic slight to both parties, but it's directionally correct.

The issue you've outlined here - the problem of modeling - is one which others here have said are "mechanistic", meaning the inputs will yield a particular outcome (as any model would) because they somehow explain physiological or biological outcomes in an impersonal manner.
Except that climate is not a mechanistic body which is as well understood as, say, the body (which many doctors would say is still not as well understood as even they would like).
However, it's possible to model bodily functions to a very high degree of confidence because it is very well understood. Climate is not nearly as well understood, and much more importantly it has many more inputs that are still relatively unknown. In fact, the Paleocene warming is not sufficiently explained by radiative forcing of Carbon Dioxide. http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n8/abs/ngeo578.html
This doesn't mean forcing is wrong, it just means it doesn't really explain much at all. Clearly other factors have to come into play - and these remain unknown.

As a result, the modeling that is done is handled with what is known. And the assumption is that these inputs can yield only certain results.

However, climatologists admit that climate is sensitive to initial conditions - it is a complex system. This means that many small inputs have a larger impact than would seem reasonable considering their relation to other, larger, inputs. As a result, if you keep adding in new data, but leave key pieces out, it's probable that you're not getting better data, just different data.

This is very common in business modeling. This is precisely why, when I do models, I am asked to provide multiple versions and relative confidence about which models make the most sense, with information backing up my claims and contingencies in the even of anomalies. I have yet to see anything of this sort from climatologists, because they are assuming the mechanistic nature of their models is linear - it can go in only one direction.

This is another flaw of modeling. In order to model, you have to have an assumed outcome. The idea of mechanistic models is that the inputs determine the output. But this is true in any model. Choose the right inputs, and you can pump up Carbon Dioxide to astronomical levels. Alter them slightly, and it could be possible to see them stabilize. Since even climatologists have no idea what all the possible inputs must be, or what their overall impact is, a real world model is unrealistic. This is precisely why weathermen rarely enjoy doing forecasts much more than 2 -3 days out.

Hurricane tracking has improved to a very large degree, and is a good example of why large-scale modeling is still out of reach. As much as they'd like, weather forecasters still cannot pinpoint the path of hurricane to any large degree of confidence more than a day or two out.