Devastating difference between real science and climate "science"

[CrusaderFrank]

On the one hand we have the scientific method where results are ruthless and relentlessly tested to determine if the theory will hold up. In a recent instance Nobel winner Frances Arnold retracted her award winning paper as the results 'were not reproducible!"

"For my first work-related tweet of 2020, I am totally bummed to announce that we have retracted last year's paper on enzymatic synthesis of beta-lactams. The work has not been reproducible"

Nobel Prize-winning scientist retracts paper, saying results were not 'reproducible'

On the other hand we have tree rings, hidden decline, altered data and IPCC admitting that climate science has nothing to do with either climate or science but is rather a wealth redistribution scheme.

Climate "scientists" are clowns and should not be called or considered scientists.

 

[DGS49]

You paint with too broad a brush. If you want to call out a noteworthy Climate Scientist who pushes the Doomsday Scenario then do so. To say that all climate scientists are clowns is...clownish.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You paint with too broad a brush. If you want to call out a noteworthy Climate Scientist who pushes the Doomsday Scenario then do so. To say that all climate scientists are clowns is...clownish.

Unfortunately there are to many who claim knowledge but refuse to support their supposition with facts and repeatable science. They are now being exposed and there are a lot of them..

 

[SSDD]

That's what happens when politics hijacks science for the purpose of gaining power...it will be 100 years before climate science becomes credible again...if then..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You paint with too broad a brush. If you want to call out a noteworthy Climate Scientist who pushes the Doomsday Scenario then do so. To say that all climate scientists are clowns is...clownish.

Show me one repeatable lab experiment linking 120PPM additional CO2 to temperature

Remember, Consensus is a Cult word. You didn't hear Frances Arnold mention that she had it, right?

 

[ph3iron]

On the one hand we have the scientific method where results are ruthless and relentlessly tested to determine if the theory will hold up. In a recent instance Nobel winner Frances Arnold retracted her award winning paper as the results 'were not reproducible!"

"For my first work-related tweet of 2020, I am totally bummed to announce that we have retracted last year's paper on enzymatic synthesis of beta-lactams. The work has not been reproducible"

Nobel Prize-winning scientist retracts paper, saying results were not 'reproducible'

On the other hand we have tree rings, hidden decline, altered data and IPCC admitting that climate science has nothing to do with either climate or science but is rather a wealth redistribution scheme.

Climate "scientists" are clowns and should not be called or considered scientists.

I missed where you got your PhD in chemistry from??

 

[CrusaderFrank]

On the one hand we have the scientific method where results are ruthless and relentlessly tested to determine if the theory will hold up. In a recent instance Nobel winner Frances Arnold retracted her award winning paper as the results 'were not reproducible!"

"For my first work-related tweet of 2020, I am totally bummed to announce that we have retracted last year's paper on enzymatic synthesis of beta-lactams. The work has not been reproducible"

Nobel Prize-winning scientist retracts paper, saying results were not 'reproducible'

On the other hand we have tree rings, hidden decline, altered data and IPCC admitting that climate science has nothing to do with either climate or science but is rather a wealth redistribution scheme.

Climate "scientists" are clowns and should not be called or considered scientists.

I missed where you got your PhD in chemistry from??

Were you trying to make some kind of a point?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If the science was on their side, they wouldn't have to "adjust" data from the last 100 years.

 

[ReinyDays]

I missed where you got your PhD in chemistry from??

PhD's aren't required to be awarded a Nobel Prize ... just saying ...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If the science was on their side, they wouldn't have to "adjust" data from the last 100 years.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If the science was on their side, they wouldn't have to "adjust" data from the last 100 years.

In 1938, NY was hit by a storm so severe it killed over 100 people and cut Montauk Point off from the rest of Long Island. Odd that nothing like it has happened since, much less "worsrer and worsreeererer storms!"

I imagine if St Great and AOC were around back then then would have been telling us the human race will burn up in a Climate Change cataclysm by 1948, 1950 at the latest!

 

[ReinyDays]

"Climate Science" is a division of the Environment Science certificate program found at vocational schools and community colleges ... this is just a non-rigid, non-mathematical survey of the issues regarding the climate and environment (perhaps even a make-work class to help the school's coffers) ... this is for people who work at things like septic tank pumping and sewage treatment facilities ... prerequisites for this class is a high school diploma ...

"Climatology" is a sub-discipline of Atmospheric Science and very few universities have this department ... and this is usually an upper division class, junior level ... traditionally, this is a backwater field for people who struggle with math where the whole idea of taking a third year of calculus is out-of-the-question (like chemists and biologists) ... rigid and mathematical as far as the basics go, then all the statistical principles on top of these basics ... prerequisites are one year physics, one year meteorology and two years calculus (recommended is a year in chemistry) ...

We don't need a PhD to discuss the climate intelligently ... but we do need to understand the basic physics ... and even the high school class would help clarify some of the misconceptions we see floating about ... force, energy, power and work and related to each other, but they are distinctly different values, if you don't know in every detail what these differences are, please avoid using these terms ... makes you look like an idiot when you use them incorrectly ... temperature measures energy, and nothing else, try to remember that ...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"Climate Science" is a division of the Environment Science certificate program found at vocational schools and community colleges ... this is just a non-rigid, non-mathematical survey of the issues regarding the climate and environment (perhaps even a make-work class to help the school's coffers) ... this is for people who work at things like septic tank pumping and sewage treatment facilities ... prerequisites for this class is a high school diploma ...

"Climatology" is a sub-discipline of Atmospheric Science and very few universities have this department ... and this is usually an upper division class, junior level ... traditionally, this is a backwater field for people who struggle with math where the whole idea of taking a third year of calculus is out-of-the-question (like chemists and biologists) ... rigid and mathematical as far as the basics go, then all the statistical principles on top of these basics ... prerequisites are one year physics, one year meteorology and two years calculus (recommended is a year in chemistry) ...

We don't need a PhD to discuss the climate intelligently ... but we do need to understand the basic physics ... and even the high school class would help clarify some of the misconceptions we see floating about ... force, energy, power and work and related to each other, but they are distinctly different values, if you don't know in every detail what these differences are, please avoid using these terms ... makes you look like an idiot when you use them incorrectly ... temperature measures energy, and nothing else, try to remember that ...

So you can't test for any temperature increase controlling for a 280 vs 400 PPM CO2 atmosphere, because "temperature measures energy"?

Are you saying we have no way of measuring energy?

 

[ReinyDays]

If the science was on their side, they wouldn't have to "adjust" data from the last 100 years.

I'm not saying you're wrong ... but we are talking about statistics and with statistics we can say anything we want, without fudging data ... and if we're using computers to work this, then we have to consider Moore's Law ... claims posted five years ago used profoundly obsolete computers ... the most powerful computers back when the IPCC issued their first report pale compared to today's wristwatches ...

Scientific theories are written in pencil, so parts can be erased and re-written as new data and research becomes available ... famously the meeting between Albert Einstein and Irwin Hubble caused Einstein to make a major correction to his GR theory ... the scientific method at it's finest ...

Funny example of how to use statistics to say awful things ... "The United Kingdom is the most violent nation on Earth, and by some degree" ... Wait a second, I thought 'merry ol' England' was one of the safest places to walk the streets, and I'm right ... but statistics say otherwise, one is most likely to be a victim of a violent crime in the UK than anywhere else in the world, bar none ... ha ha ha ... we're including simple assault in Scotland in these numbers, two Scotsmen get into a fist fight and they're both victims of a violent crime ... ha ha ha ... just stay out of Glasgow bars on Friday night and absolutely you're safe as safe can be in the UK ... it's just how we can use statistics to say anything we want to ...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If the science was on their side, they wouldn't have to "adjust" data from the last 100 years.

I'm not saying you're wrong ... but we are talking about statistics and with statistics we can say anything we want, without fudging data ... and if we're using computers to work this, then we have to consider Moore's Law ... claims posted five years ago used profoundly obsolete computers ... the most powerful computers back when the IPCC issued their first report pale compared to today's wristwatches ...

Scientific theories are written in pencil, so parts can be erased and re-written as new data and research becomes available ... famously the meeting between Albert Einstein and Irwin Hubble caused Einstein to make a major correction to his GR theory ... the scientific method at it's finest ...

Funny example of how to use statistics to say awful things ... "The United Kingdom is the most violent nation on Earth, and by some degree" ... Wait a second, I thought 'merry ol' England' was one of the safest places to walk the streets, and I'm right ... but statistics say otherwise, one is most likely to be a victim of a violent crime in the UK than anywhere else in the world, bar none ... ha ha ha ... we're including simple assault in Scotland in these numbers, two Scotsmen get into a fist fight and they're both victims of a violent crime ... ha ha ha ... just stay out of Glasgow bars on Friday night and absolutely you're safe as safe can be in the UK ... it's just how we can use statistics to say anything we want to ...

We landed a guy on the Moon and built the first A bomb without a computer. Are you saying that Climate "Science" is far too complex for even today's computers?

Will E=mc^2 come to a different result with a quantum computer?

Here's the IPCC on climate "science",

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole..." IPCC

 

[ReinyDays]

So you can't test for any temperature increase controlling for a 280 vs 400 PPM CO2 atmosphere, because "temperature measures energy"?
Are you saying we have no way of measuring energy?

These are the kinds of mistakes we need to avoid ... changing CO2 concentrations change the force involved ... this is related to energy, but they are NOT the same thing ... there's an integral that needs to be solved here ... the "macroscopic" definition of temperature is indeed total kinetic energy ... we can sit down and calculate the total energy of a glass of water to the nearest joule ... just off the top of my head, I can say it takes 4 joules of energy to raise the temperature of one gram liquid water 1ºC ... all the rest of the numbers are easily looked up in any reference book ...

 

[ReinyDays]

We landed a guy on the Moon and built the first A bomb without a computer. Are you saying that Climate "Science" is far too complex for even today's computers?

Will E=mc^2 come to a different result with a quantum computer?

Lord almighty ... E=mc^2 ... F=ma ... F=G(m1m2/r^2) ... easy peasy ... grammar school arithmetic ... no, we start with Navier-Stokes:

Now solve the triple integral for each cubic meter of the atmosphere for each second of time over the next 100 years ... this would take our fastest computer today about 10,000 years to complete ... which would be pointless, so we sacrifice accuracy for speed and instead of cubic meters, we use a volume (as of a few years ago) that measures 7.5º latitude by 7.5º longitude (at the equator) by the full 1013 mb height of the atmosphere ... an enormous volume, so piss poor accuracy ...

Here's the IPCC on climate "science",

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole..." IPCC

Yeah ... new data and research is slowly but surely completely disproving all the climate crisis scenarios ... indeed, it's very much beginning to look like global warming will be an overall good thing as measured by human suffering ... "We're at the beginning of a NEW GOLDEN ERA of human existence ..." ...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So you can't test for any temperature increase controlling for a 280 vs 400 PPM CO2 atmosphere, because "temperature measures energy"?
Are you saying we have no way of measuring energy?

These are the kinds of mistakes we need to avoid ... changing CO2 concentrations change the force involved ... this is related to energy, but they are NOT the same thing ... there's an integral that needs to be solved here ... the "macroscopic" definition of temperature is indeed total kinetic energy ... we can sit down and calculate the total energy of a glass of water to the nearest joule ... just off the top of my head, I can say it takes 4 joules of energy to raise the temperature of one gram liquid water 1ºC ... all the rest of the numbers are easily looked up in any reference book ...

Wow. 4 Joules per gram you say

So it would take 5.2 * 10 ^24th Joules to raise the oceans the 1 degree.

What does the lab work should about the 120 PPM additional CO2's ability to generate THAT much extra temperature/energy?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If the science was on their side, they wouldn't have to "adjust" data from the last 100 years.

I'm not saying you're wrong ... but we are talking about statistics and with statistics we can say anything we want, without fudging data ... and if we're using computers to work this, then we have to consider Moore's Law ... claims posted five years ago used profoundly obsolete computers ... the most powerful computers back when the IPCC issued their first report pale compared to today's wristwatches ...

Scientific theories are written in pencil, so parts can be erased and re-written as new data and research becomes available ... famously the meeting between Albert Einstein and Irwin Hubble caused Einstein to make a major correction to his GR theory ... the scientific method at it's finest ...

Funny example of how to use statistics to say awful things ... "The United Kingdom is the most violent nation on Earth, and by some degree" ... Wait a second, I thought 'merry ol' England' was one of the safest places to walk the streets, and I'm right ... but statistics say otherwise, one is most likely to be a victim of a violent crime in the UK than anywhere else in the world, bar none ... ha ha ha ... we're including simple assault in Scotland in these numbers, two Scotsmen get into a fist fight and they're both victims of a violent crime ... ha ha ha ... just stay out of Glasgow bars on Friday night and absolutely you're safe as safe can be in the UK ... it's just how we can use statistics to say anything we want to ...

but we are talking about statistics and with statistics we can say anything we want, without fudging data …

But, changing a temperature reading from 1930 from 28F to 30F.....that's fudging data.

and if we're using computers to work this, then we have to consider Moore's Law ... claims posted five years ago used profoundly obsolete computers ...

And, more importantly, GIGO.

 

[ReinyDays]

Wow. 4 Joules per gram you say
So it would take 5.2 * 10 ^24th Joules to raise the oceans the 1 degree.
What does the lab work should about the 120 PPM additional CO2's ability to generate THAT much extra temperature/energy?

10^24 joules isn't all that much energy ... a fraction of even the smallest stars release every second ... and we have 50 years to raise the oceans temperature that 1ºC ... a tiny tiny increase in CO2 causes a tiny tiny increase in temperature ... tiny ... minuscule ... trivial ... parts per million ... just a little larger than the common sense of Democrats ...