Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
What's the point in making a hypothesis?
If you know everything already, you don't need to make a hypothesis.
We can't predict the weather 100% accurately, but we can predict it accurately enough to tell people what might happen.
Some people take weather forecasts as solid, others realize the limitations. Being able to understand this is important in effectively utilizing this information.
Simply said, Science would have got nowhere had everyone waited until they were 100% sure of something before testing it.
You are apparently clueless on this since you show no understanding on what is Falsifiable in research.
Climate Models to year 2100 is a good example of failing the Falsifiability test, since there is negligible data to work with.
From Wikipedia
Falsifiability
A statement, hypothesis, or theory has falsifiability or refutability if there is the possibility of showing it to be false. It is falsifiable if it is possible to conceive an empirical observation which could refute it.[1]
For example, the universal generalization that All swans are white is falsifiable since it is logically possible to falsify it by observing a single swan that is not white.[2]
The concern with falsifiability gained attention[according to whom?] by way of philosopher of science Karl Popper's scientific epistemology referred to as "falsificationism". Popper stresses the problem of demarcation—distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific—and makes falsifiability the demarcation criterion, such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience.
Ah yes, come out with the attacks.
Sorry, I really can't be bothered with people who can't even make their point without attacks. Try again, or don't. I don't care.
Translation: I got slammed by a valid point with evidence.
Nope, but you do have the right to be wrong. I just don't care for people who act like this.
"Translation: I got slammed by a valid point with evidence."
I gave you a good description of what Falsification is, you ignore it with a bogus complaint about an unspecified attack.
Being called clueless and you whine about it, while ignoring the sources rebuttal is hilarious.
You are apparently clueless
View attachment 189350What's the point in making a hypothesis?
If you know everything already, you don't need to make a hypothesis.
We can't predict the weather 100% accurately, but we can predict it accurately enough to tell people what might happen.
Some people take weather forecasts as solid, others realize the limitations. Being able to understand this is important in effectively utilizing this information.
Simply said, Science would have got nowhere had everyone waited until they were 100% sure of something before testing it.
You are apparently clueless on this since you show no understanding on what is Falsifiable in research.
Climate Models to year 2100 is a good example of failing the Falsifiability test, since there is negligible data to work with.
From Wikipedia
Falsifiability
A statement, hypothesis, or theory has falsifiability or refutability if there is the possibility of showing it to be false. It is falsifiable if it is possible to conceive an empirical observation which could refute it.[1]
For example, the universal generalization that All swans are white is falsifiable since it is logically possible to falsify it by observing a single swan that is not white.[2]
The concern with falsifiability gained attention[according to whom?] by way of philosopher of science Karl Popper's scientific epistemology referred to as "falsificationism". Popper stresses the problem of demarcation—distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific—and makes falsifiability the demarcation criterion, such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience.
Ah yes, come out with the attacks.
Sorry, I really can't be bothered with people who can't even make their point without attacks. Try again, or don't. I don't care.
Translation: I got slammed by a valid point with evidence.
Nope, but you do have the right to be wrong. I just don't care for people who act like this.
Facts vs Model.. Dr N Scafetta does an excellent job of falsifying the models.
One that uses empirical observation as a basis for the forecast. In other words it means verifiable cycles and trends that have been seen and documented...View attachment 189350You are apparently clueless on this since you show no understanding on what is Falsifiable in research.
Climate Models to year 2100 is a good example of failing the Falsifiability test, since there is negligible data to work with.
From Wikipedia
Falsifiability
A statement, hypothesis, or theory has falsifiability or refutability if there is the possibility of showing it to be false. It is falsifiable if it is possible to conceive an empirical observation which could refute it.[1]
For example, the universal generalization that All swans are white is falsifiable since it is logically possible to falsify it by observing a single swan that is not white.[2]
The concern with falsifiability gained attention[according to whom?] by way of philosopher of science Karl Popper's scientific epistemology referred to as "falsificationism". Popper stresses the problem of demarcation—distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific—and makes falsifiability the demarcation criterion, such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience.
Ah yes, come out with the attacks.
Sorry, I really can't be bothered with people who can't even make their point without attacks. Try again, or don't. I don't care.
Translation: I got slammed by a valid point with evidence.
Nope, but you do have the right to be wrong. I just don't care for people who act like this.
Facts vs Model.. Dr N Scafetta does an excellent job of falsifying the models.
Pray tell, on your lovely graphic. What is an "Empirical Forecast"?
It pains me that you don't either. If I make such an "empirical forecast" using an obvious selection from the graph below as my basis, I can project a global temperature for 2100 over four Centigrade degrees higher than today's. Is that okay with you?
And, looking at these data, do you really think we can assume that an 'empirical forecast" that shows ZERO warming is valid?
Talk about someone posting crap for years... jesus, dude, get a fucking life.
These are MODEL RUNS creating a mean temperature. They ARE NOT empirical evidence. But nice try... Your attempt to obfuscate the deception is clear.It pains me that you don't either. If I make such an "empirical forecast" using an obvious selection from the graph below as my basis, I can project a global temperature for 2100 over four Centigrade degrees higher than today's. Is that okay with you?
And, looking at these data, do you really think we can assume that an 'empirical forecast" that shows ZERO warming is valid?
It pains me that you don't either. If I make such an "empirical forecast" using an obvious selection from the graph below as my basis, I can project a global temperature for 2100 over four Centigrade degrees higher than today's. Is that okay with you?
And, looking at these data, do you really think we can assume that an 'empirical forecast" that shows ZERO warming is valid?
Talk about someone posting crap for years... jesus, dude, get a fucking life.
He dosen't have a clue what it is he is posting. He apparently thinks were to stupid to look and find what he is posting. Then determine what it is he really posted... I believe you will find this chart in Karl Et Al. I searched for it and got the copyright notification for that paper.It pains me that you don't either. If I make such an "empirical forecast" using an obvious selection from the graph below as my basis, I can project a global temperature for 2100 over four Centigrade degrees higher than today's. Is that okay with you?
And, looking at these data, do you really think we can assume that an 'empirical forecast" that shows ZERO warming is valid?
You are using PISS, the very worst data set. Look at how they have nearly erased the 1940's to 1980 cooling trend, which used to around .55C lower by 1980, now it is only about .11C lower than the early 1940's peak.
Where is your link to the chart?
Where is your link to the chart?
Funny, You Never asked for a LINK from a Moderator who posted Charts in my thread several timesYou didn't post the link to your chart fella.
Where's YOUR Link for these Charts?Where is your link to the chart?
Are you having a problem locating Phil Jones well known charts from the CRU? Or John Christys chart from UAH?Where's YOUR Link for this Chart?Where is your link to the chart?
Extreme weather events that show AGW
or This one:
UAH for March 2018
Now you're bizarrely asking for LINKS from opponents for Charts.... you can't handle?
LOFL
`
I'm having No problems at all.Are you having a problem locating Phil Jones well known charts from the CRU? Or John Christys chart from UAH?
You stupid fuck, the very measures which will prevent the increase in GHGs are also bringing us cheaper electricity. Wind and solar are both cheaper than fossil fuels in utility scale installations. And grid scale batteries will make them 24/7. A virtual utility like the state of South Australia and Tesla are building will make solar and wind 24/7.Yeah, let's destroy the global economy because of a wild ass guess.Weather fronts are a basic phrase we hear used in every weather forecast. Per Wiki: "A weather front is a boundary separating two masses of air of different densities, and is the principal cause of meteorological phenomena. In surface weather analyses, fronts are depicted using various colored triangles and half-circles, depending on the type of front. The air masses separated by a front usually differ in temperature and humidity."
We have all seen the weather maps, blue and redlines representing weather fronts.
80 years ago mankind had no idea that this basic natural event even existed. There was no such thing as a weather front prior to 1941. Zero knowledge. And I'm not even going to get into all of other variables of climate and solar influences that we are just starting to learn about in the last few decades. This is just about one aspect that we now know is a common basic event in nature.
The point is, we are like ants crawling out of the hole for the first time. We are infants in our knowledge of the climate engines of nature. We know very, very little how things work. Yeah, we have basic theories, but we do not KNOW all of the variables involved. That is why your 3 day weather forecast rarely hits what actually occurs 3 days from now. It will be close, but rarely exact.
So for some computer geek to write lines of code to mimic how climate works when we know so little is futile. Especially when that person has financial incentives to skew how the model works.
So, we shouldn't even try... because....
How about assholes like you catching up to current technology? Wind and solar are already cheaper than fossil fuels.How about we increase our understanding of climate by a couple orders of magnitude before we start bankrupting whole economies. That is the bottom line.So, we shouldn't even try... because....
Did you really read what he wrote?
He never said don't try at all, he was talking about how little we know and that the science of weather forecasting is still in the early stages.
Daily Satellite coverage of weather events came on in the mid 1960s, but not for regional coverage until the 1970's.
LINK
Yes, I read what he wrote thank you very much.
I also read this bit "So for some computer geek to write lines of code to mimic how climate works when we know so little is futile. Especially when that person has financial incentives to skew how the model works."
It's not futile at all. He's basically saying don't try because we're not going to get it perfect.
Problem is, if you don't try now, you won't progress. It's a fucking idiotic statement to make.
Research that can't be verifiable is a complete waste of time. There is a reason why good thinkers keep in mind if this particular hypothesis is testable to continue the research or change the hypothesis if possible or drop it completely.
Surely you knew this?
What's the point in making a hypothesis?
If you know everything already, you don't need to make a hypothesis.
We can't predict the weather 100% accurately, but we can predict it accurately enough to tell people what might happen.
Some people take weather forecasts as solid, others realize the limitations. Being able to understand this is important in effectively utilizing this information.
Simply said, Science would have got nowhere had everyone waited until they were 100% sure of something before testing it.
Your data is homogenized - that means it's fake.It pains me that you don't either. If I make such an "empirical forecast" using an obvious selection from the graph below as my basis, I can project a global temperature for 2100 over four Centigrade degrees higher than today's. Is that okay with you?
And, looking at these data, do you really think we can assume that an 'empirical forecast" that shows ZERO warming is valid?
