1 hour ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

While I get that you're using the Moon as a metaphor for a planet without a greenhouse effect, it's worth noting that Earth's equilibrium temperature without greenhouse gases is calculated at around -18°C—not quite the same as the Moon’s -23°C, which also lacks the thermal inertia and moderating effect of oceans. So your point stands rhetorically, but the analogy could be tightened if we want to be precise.

It’s also basically in the same orbit, though it has a different albedo (but also assumes things about the earth’s albedo which might not hold under those conditions)

A few degrees is not a big difference given the assumptions being made.

3 hours ago, swansont said:

It’s also basically in the same orbit, though it has a different albedo (but also assumes things about the earth’s albedo which might not hold under those conditions)

A few degrees is not a big difference given the assumptions being made.

I understand what you are saying, but I still stand by my point in which precision matters.

4 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Think this through. If as you say, this hypothetical earth were at or around -20^oC then what state are the oceans in?

As things stand, earth has a significantly higher albedo than the moon, and an ice covering will increase that difference considerably. This will drive the equilibrium temperature of the earth down to the <-50^oC estimates for 'Snowball Earth' scenarios of the late Proterozoic.

(Ref: Hoffman, P. F., Kaufman, A. J., Halverson, G. P., & Schrag, D. P. (1998). "A new model for Neoproterozoic glaciation." Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 286(1-2), 295-310.; Abbot, D. S., & Tziperman, E. (2009). "Glacial–interglacial cycles and Snowball Earth." Nature, 457(7227), 179-183.)

For the specific purposes of this topic, I did not need to introduce this complication in order to establish the principle that having some greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is beneficial.

I chose this wording carefully: it is in agreement with expert concensus. Something of an understatement actually.

That's a fair point—and yes, if we're talking about a fully glaciated Earth with significantly higher albedo, the resulting cooling could absolutely drive temperatures much lower, as Snowball Earth scenarios suggest.

But just to clarify where I was coming from: the -18°C estimate is the commonly accepted figure for Earth's effective temperature without any greenhouse effect, based on current albedo—not a post-glaciation Earth with all oceans frozen over. It’s a simplified model for energy balance, not a prediction of glacial coverage.

My only goal was to make sure the physics behind it isn't unintentionally oversimplified."

IIRC, the thread topic is how to present persuasive (and one presumes, understandable) arguments to climate change skeptics. I'm not sure skeptics are really amenable to fact-based arguments, but if there exist such then they would be the very tiny subset of climate change skeptics who grasp the deep complexity of atmospheric science and climate modeling. So the optimum focus would be on the actual Earth, historical data including ice cores, and the most predictive models of how various GW drivers play out - CO2, methane, glacial melting, airborne particulates settling on snowfields, oceanic pH, vulcanism, cloud cover changes, feedback mechanisms like Co2/water vapor loop, conversion of dense forest to scrub or savannah, etc. So, yes, precision on particular points of geophysics is good, but it's maybe important to really look at how all these different trends and feedback loops interact with each other in a real-world big picture way.

1 hour ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

My only goal was to make sure the physics behind it isn't unintentionally oversimplified.

If the message is to be taken on board by the target audience then it most definitely does have to be intentionally simplified - to a choice of where we want to be in a narrow Goldilocks zone in the spectrum between Moon (really bad) and Venus (even worse).

The moment you get into tipping points and feedback mechanisms etc., you've lost your target audience and the other side win. That is the nature of the game whether you wish it or not. Arguing over eg. exact figures for hypothetical scenarios is just playing into the enemy's hands. It shows us to be weak and divided when it is imperative we appear strong and united.

12 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

it is imperative we appear strong and united.

What are you referencing here?

14 hours ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

understand what you are saying, but I still stand by my point in which precision matters.

The precision of a prediction is limited by the precision of the data that goes into the model, and the model itself, which came up in the discussion. We’re talking about a discrepancy of ~5 parts in 250 (the temperature in the formula is in Kelvins) 2% is fairly precise under these circumstances.

19 minutes ago, swansont said:

The precision of a prediction is limited by the precision of the data that goes into the model, and the model itself, which came up in the discussion. We’re talking about a discrepancy of ~5 parts in 250 (the temperature in the formula is in Kelvins) 2% is fairly precise under these circumstances.

Exact precision gives the best estimates.

20 hours ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

Exact precision gives the best estimates.

Obviously, but it has been my experience that exact precision only exists in theoretical discussions and not in the real world.

2 hours ago, npts2020 said:

Obviously, but it has been my experience that exact precision only exists in theoretical discussions and not in the real world.

Interesting, specific to climate science though

Theoretical or not precisions give the best estimate

On 4/30/2025 at 7:42 PM, sethoflagos said:

The moment you get into tipping points and feedback mechanisms etc., you've lost your target audience and the other side win. That is the nature of the game whether you wish it or not. Arguing over eg. exact figures for hypothetical scenarios is just playing into the enemy's hands. It shows us to be weak and divided when it is imperative we appear strong and united.

There are hundreds of thousands of paper cited on climate change, if they still don't believe it then they are simply obtuse or are choosing to be obtuse.

18 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

Theoretical or not precisions give the best estimate

In the absence clearly stated tolerances, the more the number of significant digits, the greater the lie (a generalisation but pretty well grounded)

False precision (also called overprecision, fake precision, misplaced precision, excess precision, and spurious precision) occurs when numerical data are presented in a manner that implies better precision than is justified; since precision is a limit to accuracy (in the ISO definition of accuracy), this often leads to overconfidence in the accuracy, named precision bias.^[1]

27 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

There are hundreds of thousands of paper cited on climate change, if they still don't believe it then they are simply obtuse or are choosing to be obtuse.

Do you have a shred of evidence that more than one person in a hundred habitually reads academic papers?

Just now, sethoflagos said:

Do you have a shred of evidence that more than one person in a hundred habitually reads academic papers?

That's why I said "they should," climate change is merely undeniable.

1 minute ago, sethoflagos said:

In the absence clearly stated tolerances, the more the number of significant digits, the greater the lie (a generalisation but pretty well grounded)

Precise digits lead to the best estimations.

9 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

Do you have a shred of evidence that more than one person in a hundred habitually reads academic papers?

Do they have a shred of evidence that climate change does not exist? Its a simple google search people

Nope. No bad faith here. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Just now, Sohan Lalwani said:

Precise digits lead to the best estimations.

I would be interested to learn why you think this is so.

3 hours ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

Precise digits lead to the best estimations.

Yet your 'precise' -18^o C turns out to be a worse estimate than my 'nearest round number' -20^o C. Isn't that strange.

3 hours ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

That's why I said "they should,"

Where exactly did you say this? Can't seem to find it.

48 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

Yet your 'precise' -18^o C turns out to be a worse estimate than my 'nearest round number' -20^o C. Isn't that strange.

Yet my precise -18 degrees Celsius will give a better estimation value than you rounding to the nearest number. That is not strange.

50 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

Where exactly did you say this? Can't seem to find it.

It wasn't to state I directly stated it, but to say I said something extremely similar which is "Perhaps tell them to read"

51 minutes ago, studiot said:

I would be interested to learn why you think this is so.

I remember reading a textbook which I am currently looking for that I took notes on quite some time ago, I did manage to save what it mentioned (via my notes) "precise estimates in climate science are important for informed decision-making and effective action to address climate change. Accurate climate models and forecasts, while not perfect, provide valuable insights for planning infrastructure, adapting to changing weather patterns, and mitigating the risks of climate change. Thus, the exact estimate or closest should be provided. "

1 hour ago, sethoflagos said:

Yet your 'precise' -18^o C turns out to be a worse estimate than my 'nearest round number' -20^o C. Isn't that strange.

Where exactly did you say this? Can't seem to find it.

Atmospheric science critically depends on the accurate and precise measurement of a wide range of parameters, including temperature, humidity, gas concentrations, and aerosols. Such precision is not a matter of convenience but a fundamental necessity for achieving meaningful, reproducible scientific results. In practical terms, any degradation in measurement accuracy can distort the representation of atmospheric profiles, leading to erroneous inferences about atmospheric processes and human-induced changes. The explicit recognition of accurate measurement as "critical" for scientific achievement highlights its non-negotiable role in climate science investigations, with direct implications for data credibility, utility, and acceptance in broader scientific discourse

L Barbieri, ST Kral, SCC Bailey, AE Frazier, & JD Jacob. (2019). Intercomparison of small unmanned aircraft system (sUAS) measurements for atmospheric science during the LAPSE-RATE campaign. In Sensors. https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/19/9/2179

Interesting isn't it?

1 hour ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

Yet my precise -18 degrees Celsius will give a better estimation value than you rounding to the nearest number. That is not strange.

But it didn't, did it. It is even further away from the <-50^o C limit currently accepted for an ice dominated earth. So your assertion is, as you would not hesitate to say, "factually inaccurate".

The heart of this thread is about how to establish credibilty. Your postings are fine examples of how to achieve the opposite.

1 hour ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

It wasn't to state I directly stated it, but to say I said something extremely similar which is "Perhaps tell them to read"

You didn't use those words either. Not even close. Haven't you been pulled up for misquoting in other threads?

2 hours ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

Atmospheric science critically depends on the accurate and precise measurement of a wide range of parameters, including temperature, humidity, gas concentrations, and aerosols. Such precision is not a matter of convenience but a fundamental necessity for achieving meaningful, reproducible scientific results. In practical terms, any degradation in measurement accuracy can distort the representation of atmospheric profiles, leading to erroneous inferences about atmospheric processes and human-induced changes. The explicit recognition of accurate measurement as "critical" for scientific achievement highlights its non-negotiable role in climate science investigations, with direct implications for data credibility, utility, and acceptance in broader scientific discourse

L Barbieri, ST Kral, SCC Bailey, AE Frazier, & JD Jacob. (2019). Intercomparison of small unmanned aircraft system (sUAS) measurements for atmospheric science during the LAPSE-RATE campaign. In Sensors. https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/19/9/2179

Interesting isn't it?

Illuminating. Chrome has a neat little "Find" function that allows one to check if a purported quote is truly contained within a document. This one isn't from your referenced paper. Not even close.

1 hour ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

I remember reading a textbook which I am currently looking for that I took notes on quite some time ago, I did manage to save what it mentioned (via my notes) "precise estimates in climate science are important for informed decision-making and effective action to address climate change. Accurate climate models and forecasts, while not perfect, provide valuable insights for planning infrastructure, adapting to changing weather patterns, and mitigating the risks of climate change. Thus, the exact estimate or closest should be provided. "

Under the circumstances, I don't feel inclined to take this assertion at face value.

10 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

You didn't use those words either. Not even close.

“Perhaps tell them to read” is in their very first post in this thread. (Wed 12:58 PM, by the time tag for my time zone)

3 hours ago, swansont said:

“Perhaps tell them to read” is in their very first post in this thread. (Wed 12:58 PM, by the time tag for my time zone)

Back when "them" referred to people who hadn't read any of the science rather than those who had but were simply being "obtuse"?

Nevertheless,, comment withdrawn with apologies.

14 hours ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

I remember reading a textbook which I am currently looking for that I took notes on quite some time ago, I did manage to save what it mentioned (via my notes) "precise estimates in climate science are important for informed decision-making and effective action to address climate change. Accurate climate models and forecasts, while not perfect, provide valuable insights for planning infrastructure, adapting to changing weather patterns, and mitigating the risks of climate change. Thus, the exact estimate or closest should be provided.

Have you ever been taught how to provide a reference ?

Or have you ever studied the subject of the science of measurement errors ?

In particular do you understand the definitions of and differences between estimate, accuracy, precision, tolerance, limits and fits, significant figures, boundedness ?

The last one is particularly relevent as Seth has quoted an inequality.

If you have ever pondered the phrase " precise estimates" perhaps you might have wondered if it has any real meaning.

Edited May 3May 3 by studiot

19 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

But it didn't, did it. It is even further away from the <-50^o C limit currently accepted for an ice dominated earth. So your assertion is, as you would not hesitate to say, "factually inaccurate".

A fine example of how generalization is wrong! There were numerous ice ages, get specific PRECISION MATTERS

Your posting are an excellent example of how someone with decent credibility can STILL BE WRONG :)

1 hour ago, studiot said:

In particular do you understand the definitions of and differences between estimate, accuracy, precision, tolerance, limits and fits, significant figures, boundedness ?

Asking this question is idiotic, there is no verification factor. I could just look this up and pretend I am expert.

4 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Back when "them" referred to people who hadn't read any of the science rather than those who had but were simply being "obtuse"?

Thats @zapatos , get your facts right before you starting going on a tangent.

19 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Illuminating. Chrome has a neat little "Find" function that allows one to check if a purported quote is truly contained within a document. This one isn't from your referenced paper. Not even close.

Intriguing! Here's the shocker! IM NOT DIRECTLY QUOTING ANYTHING FROM THE PAPER AT ALL

I AM RESTATING and using evidence that supports my statements.

THINK before you SPEAK. Fine credibility you have!

4 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Nevertheless,, comment withdrawn with apologies.

Good, thank you :)

19 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Under the circumstances, I don't feel inclined to take this assertion at face value.

Understandable why, but applying the same logic and how you have lacked substantial precision, I don't feel inclined to believe your statements either.

Just now, Sohan Lalwani said:

A fine example of how generalization is wrong! There were numerous ice ages, get specific PRECISION MATTERS

Your posting are an excellent example of how someone with decent credibility can STILL BE WRONG :)

Asking this question is idiotic, there is no verification factor. I could just look this up and pretend I am expert.

Thats @zapatos , get your facts right before you starting going on a tangent.

Congratulations I confirm my suspicion that you are adept at avoiding answering questions.

Just now, studiot said:

Congratulations I confirm my suspicion that you are adept at avoiding answering questions.

I am saying the question you are asking is not very logical as there is no verification factor.

Congratulations I confirm my suspicion that you like to jump to conclusions!

19 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

But it didn't, did it. It is even further away from the <-50^o C limit currently accepted for an ice dominated earth.

Get specific here, what geological epoch, Earth has had at least 5 major ice ages. My assertion is that you are "factually incorrect" in your precision.

1 hour ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

Thats @zapatos , get your facts right before you starting going on a tangent.

Not sure @zapatos has yet posted to this thread.

On 4/30/2025 at 5:58 PM, Sohan Lalwani said:

Perhaps tell them to read

That's you referring to those who have not read the papers...

On 5/2/2025 at 4:05 PM, Sohan Lalwani said:

There are hundreds of thousands of paper cited on climate change, if they still don't believe it then they are simply obtuse or are choosing to be obtuse.

... and this is also you referring to people who have and don't buy into the science (otherwise "obtuse" would be the wrong word)

Different "thems". Why are you attempting to conflate two mutually exclusive contexts?

1 hour ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

Intriguing! Here's the shocker! IM NOT DIRECTLY QUOTING ANYTHING FROM THE PAPER AT ALL

Obviously. The phrasing had a distinct odour of LLM.

1 hour ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

I AM RESTATING and using evidence that supports my statements.

The paper discusses the challenges of real world measurement NOT the validity of estimates generated by mathematical modelling. Two entirely different classes of data and therefore utterly irrelevant to the discussion. It doesn't support your argument in the slightest. Clearly a bit of dead catting.

2 hours ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

My assertion is that you are "factually incorrect" in your precision.

Howl it to the moon. No one else is agreeing with you.

My assertion is withheld as it would contravene site rules in so many ways.

34 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

Not sure @zapatos has yet posted to this thread.

That's you referring to those who have not read the papers...

Yes perhaps tell them to read.

34 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

Obviously. The phrasing had a distinct odour of LLM.

This sentence has a distinct odor of idiocy and irrelevance.

35 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

Howl it to the moon. No one else is agreeing with you.

Howl it to this forum, you are incorrect.

36 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

The paper discusses the challenges of real world measurement NOT the validity of estimates generated by mathematical modelling. Two entirely different classes of data and therefore utterly irrelevant to the discussion. It doesn't support your argument in the slightest. Clearly a bit of dead catting.

The paper also supports the fact that precision methedology and precision in general MATTERS in climate science. Your statement is an attempt to get a "gotcha moment," my friend that's not going to come.

37 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

Obviously. The phrasing had a distinct odour of LLM.

Dead catting I see

37 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

... and this is also you referring to people who have and don't buy into the science (otherwise "obtuse" would be the wrong word)

Look at the wording, "they are choosing to be obtuse," I am calling out their actions. Perhaps read the statement before commenting.

39 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

Different "thems". Why are you attempting to conflate two mutually exclusive contexts?

I was reading your statements, its THEY not THEM

Grammar like precision matters, though a few mistakes is generally ok as I misspelled methodology.

22 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

The heart of this thread is about how to establish credibilty. Your postings are fine examples of how to achieve the opposite.

The heart of this thread is about climate science. Where have you been?

41 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

Obviously. The phrasing had a distinct odour of LLM.

There's a special thing called direct quotations, not sure google as a "Google Quotations" for you but I was restating the paper, not directly quoting it so please don't say "obviously" when you interpreted something simple wrong.

43 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

The paper discusses the challenges of real world measurement NOT the validity of estimates generated by mathematical modelling. Two entirely different classes of data and therefore utterly irrelevant to the discussion. It doesn't support your argument in the slightest. Clearly a bit of dead catting.

They are very connected, not the same thing but very connected. Fix your word choice.

44 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

Not sure @zapatos has yet posted to this thread.

That's you referring to those who have not read the papers...

... and this is also you referring to people who have and don't buy into the science (otherwise "obtuse" would be the wrong word)

Different "thems". Why are you attempting to conflate two mutually exclusive contexts?

Obviously. The phrasing had a distinct odour of LLM.

The paper discusses the challenges of real world measurement NOT the validity of estimates generated by mathematical modelling. Two entirely different classes of data and therefore utterly irrelevant to the discussion. It doesn't support your argument in the slightest. Clearly a bit of dead catting.

Howl it to the moon. No one else is agreeing with you.

My assertion is withheld as it would contravene site rules in so many ways.

Waiting for the ice age clarification

44 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

My assertion is withheld as it would contravene site rules in so many ways.

OH NO SHIVER ME TIMBERS! ARE YOU GOING TO SAY A NO-NO WORD?!?!?!?!?!?!?!1

46 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

Different "thems". Why are you attempting to conflate two mutually exclusive contexts?

THEY are connected through a process of empirical anchoring—where real-world measurement functions as the epistemic benchmark against which the epistemological integrity of model-derived estimates is gauged.

Mathematical modelling, by its nature, is an abstraction: a formalized representation of hypothesized relationships between variables, often constructed to simulate systems too complex, vast, or chaotic for direct manipulation. But no matter how elegant the model—be it deterministic, stochastic, or agent-based—its ontological legitimacy hinges on how well its outputs cohere with empirical data. That’s where real-world measurement enters the equation.

Real-world measurement acts as a calibration mechanism and a ground-truth validator. It's not merely about comparing numbers—it's about probing the correspondence theory of truth in scientific modelling. If a model’s estimates deviate substantially from empirical observations, it signals either a breakdown in the model's internal assumptions, parameterization, or even the theoretical framework underpinning it.

Moreover, these two domains—empirical observation and theoretical estimation—are linked through iterative feedback loops. Real-world measurements inform model development, and in turn, models predict phenomena that guide future measurement priorities. This dynamic interplay creates a cybernetic system of scientific refinement, where neither component exists in a vacuum.

2 hours ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

Dead catting I see

No. Just our way of telling you to...