Global warming, my ass!

[T.E.C. - Iowa]

I am done taking your word for crap science. You need to start citing your sources!!!

Funny;

I assess my opponents by what they know and believe not what they cite. You have shown me that you only accept those items from SKS and the IPCC. You have very little interest in what the data actually says and appear to be pushing an agenda.. I purposely included graphing that are clearly marked for their source to see if YOU can follow the information. You did not.

You appear, by your actions, to be following a specific set of talking points.

It was my intent to challenge those and i succeeded, evidenced by your responses.

As for crap science, the IPCC is the worst you can get. I even gave you a starting point with Dr David W Evans 12 minuet description of the situation.

Before I even begin to debate the SB equation and how potential forcing's are calculated I wanted to know what it is you know and how factual you are.

IF you want to know how the IPCC is discredited you need only look at the lack of a tropospheric hot spot, the failure of LWIR at TOA to be retained, and the fact that all 136 modeling (GCM's) FAIL empirical real world review. In others words, the ability of the molders to forecast is nonexistent. If you are incapable of modeling the system, you don't have a clue how it works. ITS CALLED EMPIRICAL REVIEW.

About, "I assess my opponents by what they know and believe not what they cite", this is a fancy way of saying "Let's ignore the experts in favor of what? Someone like Dr. David W. Evans. It seems Dr. Evan is

(Quote)

Rocket Scientist, a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.[“and part-time 2008 to 2010, (it was disbanded in 2007 !) modelling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. He is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees, including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering”]

(End quote)

Gee, I did not see a climatology degree there - not to mention most people will rely on the "current thinking" in science that is form from the total of the peer review journals instead of one person.



About the word "nonexistent", it appear you are trying to say "the scientist know nothing, so let's burying our head and do nothing."

There is no such thing as a "climatology" degree.

Dr. Hansen, Dr. Schmidt do not have "climatology" degrees either.

If you have ever done research, you know that the first thing you do is a research of the literature to understand "current thinking." You do this because your research needs to connect with other current research. It is that current thinking that you go by, not the views of one person.

It can take only ONE reproducible paper from one person to upend a whole science field. It has happened before.

You have no point to sell here.

Actually, that is not true! If someone does an "upending study", it will not change current thinking until it has been replicated several times. Also, upending studies are usually quickly followed by critique papers. The critiques not only point out the weaknesses in the study (and there are always weaknesses in a single study), but also point to how the replication of the study should be done in a never ending pursuit of the truth.

So no, one study does not overturn "current thinking!" There is a process to all of this, and it is part of the "scientific method."

 

[Sunsettommy]

Funny;

I assess my opponents by what they know and believe not what they cite. You have shown me that you only accept those items from SKS and the IPCC. You have very little interest in what the data actually says and appear to be pushing an agenda.. I purposely included graphing that are clearly marked for their source to see if YOU can follow the information. You did not.

You appear, by your actions, to be following a specific set of talking points.

It was my intent to challenge those and i succeeded, evidenced by your responses.

As for crap science, the IPCC is the worst you can get. I even gave you a starting point with Dr David W Evans 12 minuet description of the situation.

Before I even begin to debate the SB equation and how potential forcing's are calculated I wanted to know what it is you know and how factual you are.

IF you want to know how the IPCC is discredited you need only look at the lack of a tropospheric hot spot, the failure of LWIR at TOA to be retained, and the fact that all 136 modeling (GCM's) FAIL empirical real world review. In others words, the ability of the molders to forecast is nonexistent. If you are incapable of modeling the system, you don't have a clue how it works. ITS CALLED EMPIRICAL REVIEW.

About, "I assess my opponents by what they know and believe not what they cite", this is a fancy way of saying "Let's ignore the experts in favor of what? Someone like Dr. David W. Evans. It seems Dr. Evan is

(Quote)

Rocket Scientist, a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.[“and part-time 2008 to 2010, (it was disbanded in 2007 !) modelling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. He is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees, including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering”]

(End quote)

Gee, I did not see a climatology degree there - not to mention most people will rely on the "current thinking" in science that is form from the total of the peer review journals instead of one person.



About the word "nonexistent", it appear you are trying to say "the scientist know nothing, so let's burying our head and do nothing."

There is no such thing as a "climatology" degree.

Dr. Hansen, Dr. Schmidt do not have "climatology" degrees either.

If you have ever done research, you know that the first thing you do is a research of the literature to understand "current thinking." You do this because your research needs to connect with other current research. It is that current thinking that you go by, not the views of one person.

It can take only ONE reproducible paper from one person to upend a whole science field. It has happened before.

You have no point to sell here.

Actually, that is not true! If someone does an "upending study", it will not change current thinking until it has been replicated several times. Also, upending studies are usually quickly followed by critique papers. The critiques not only point out the weaknesses in the study (and there are always weaknesses in a single study), but also point to how the replication of the study should be done in a never ending pursuit of the truth.

So no, one study does not overturn "current thinking!" There is a process to all of this, and it is part of the "scientific method."

You are a funny guy who contradicts himself painfully here since you make clear you are lover of the AGW conjecture, which is MODEL driven research, that does not conform to the Scientific Method.

Yes there have been research that does up end a consensus paradigm, but doesn't get appreciated for a while because of entrenched belief system getting in the way. You can't be that ignorant of this?

There are a LOT of known weaknesses of the AGW conjecture, but your refuse to accept them is because you have been brainwashed to believe in it. You don't know why you do it, but you do it automatically and will ignore contrary research that clearly refutes it.

 

[T.E.C. - Iowa]

About, "I assess my opponents by what they know and believe not what they cite", this is a fancy way of saying "Let's ignore the experts in favor of what? Someone like Dr. David W. Evans. It seems Dr. Evan is

(Quote)

Rocket Scientist, a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.[“and part-time 2008 to 2010, (it was disbanded in 2007 !) modelling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. He is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees, including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering”]

(End quote)

Gee, I did not see a climatology degree there - not to mention most people will rely on the "current thinking" in science that is form from the total of the peer review journals instead of one person.



About the word "nonexistent", it appear you are trying to say "the scientist know nothing, so let's burying our head and do nothing."

There is no such thing as a "climatology" degree.

Dr. Hansen, Dr. Schmidt do not have "climatology" degrees either.

If you have ever done research, you know that the first thing you do is a research of the literature to understand "current thinking." You do this because your research needs to connect with other current research. It is that current thinking that you go by, not the views of one person.

It can take only ONE reproducible paper from one person to upend a whole science field. It has happened before.

You have no point to sell here.

Actually, that is not true! If someone does an "upending study", it will not change current thinking until it has been replicated several times. Also, upending studies are usually quickly followed by critique papers. The critiques not only point out the weaknesses in the study (and there are always weaknesses in a single study), but also point to how the replication of the study should be done in a never ending pursuit of the truth.

So no, one study does not overturn "current thinking!" There is a process to all of this, and it is part of the "scientific method."

You are a funny guy who contradicts himself painfully here since you make clear you are lover of the AGW conjecture, which is MODEL driven research, that does not conform to the Scientific Method.

Yes there have been research that does up end a consensus paradigm, but doesn't get appreciated for a while because of entrenched belief system getting in the way. You can't be that ignorant of this?

There are a LOT of known weaknesses of the AGW conjecture, but your refuse to accept them is because you have been brainwashed to believe in it. You don't know why you do it, but you do it automatically and will ignore contrary research that clearly refutes it.

News flash! This is not about me! If you think there is a lot of weakness or whatever you are free to post. Yet, again, my personality is not the issue - just as the personality of a scientist is not relevant to the research he or she does. So give up on the name calling!

I do not know how much you know about the scientific method. It is probably more complex than you imagine, because models are used in the process. And yes, the weaknesses are discussed by the scientist just as error bars are added to scientific data. Yet, using models is perfectly acceptable.

A quick example, the scientifically correct or best way to link a disease to a bacterium is with Koch's Postulate. This involves isolating the bacteria from a sick person, giving it to a healthy person and watching them get sick, and then isolating the bacteria from the person that you infected.

Obviously, you cannot do that with diseases like HIV, or HPV. So they use a different standard call "causal medical inference." Turns out 90% of all medical knowledge was established by causal medical inference. Watch the video and learn, he mentions climate change! You will learn that science is more complex than you imagine.

 

[Sunsettommy]

There is no such thing as a "climatology" degree.

Dr. Hansen, Dr. Schmidt do not have "climatology" degrees either.

If you have ever done research, you know that the first thing you do is a research of the literature to understand "current thinking." You do this because your research needs to connect with other current research. It is that current thinking that you go by, not the views of one person.

It can take only ONE reproducible paper from one person to upend a whole science field. It has happened before.

You have no point to sell here.

Actually, that is not true! If someone does an "upending study", it will not change current thinking until it has been replicated several times. Also, upending studies are usually quickly followed by critique papers. The critiques not only point out the weaknesses in the study (and there are always weaknesses in a single study), but also point to how the replication of the study should be done in a never ending pursuit of the truth.

So no, one study does not overturn "current thinking!" There is a process to all of this, and it is part of the "scientific method."

You are a funny guy who contradicts himself painfully here since you make clear you are lover of the AGW conjecture, which is MODEL driven research, that does not conform to the Scientific Method.

Yes there have been research that does up end a consensus paradigm, but doesn't get appreciated for a while because of entrenched belief system getting in the way. You can't be that ignorant of this?

There are a LOT of known weaknesses of the AGW conjecture, but your refuse to accept them is because you have been brainwashed to believe in it. You don't know why you do it, but you do it automatically and will ignore contrary research that clearly refutes it.

News flash! This is not about me! If you think there is a lot of weakness or whatever you are free to post. Yet, again, my personality is not the issue - just as the personality of a scientist is not relevant to the research he or she does. So give up on the name calling!

I do not know how much you know about the scientific method. It is probably more complex than you imagine, because models are used in the process. And yes, the weaknesses are discussed by the scientist just as error bars are added to scientific data. Yet, using models is perfectly acceptable.

A quick example, the scientifically correct or best way to link a disease to a bacterium is with Koch's Postulate. This involves isolating the bacteria from a sick person, giving it to a healthy person and watching them get sick, and then isolating the bacteria from the person that you infected.

Obviously, you cannot do that with diseases like HIV, or HPV. So they use a different standard call "causal medical inference." Turns out 90% of all medical knowledge was established by causal medical inference. Watch the video and learn, he mentions climate change! You will learn that science is more complex than you imagine.

I see that you KNOW you can't address this:

"You are a funny guy who contradicts himself painfully here since you make clear you are lover of the AGW conjecture, which is MODEL driven research, that does not conform to the Scientific Method."

This is why you are deflecting.

The Scientific Method REQUIRES that it be reproducible before it can be useful for further research. Failed papers gets tossed aside for a good reason, which is why consensus pablums doesn't work. Reproducible research will work.

Climate Models to year 2100 doesn't work because it is untestable, therefore becomes a dead end. The AGW science is already a dead end anyway, because the few short term prediction/projections have utterly failed.

Failed in several ways that is normally enough to kill a conjecture/hypothesis:

Per Decade warming trend = FAILED

"Hot spot" = FAILED

Increasing storminess = FAILED

Decreasing cold and Snowfall = FAILED

One FAILURE was enough 4 becomes a steam roll.

Why do you continue to defend the AGW conjecture?

 

[T.E.C. - Iowa]

If you have ever done research, you know that the first thing you do is a research of the literature to understand "current thinking." You do this because your research needs to connect with other current research. It is that current thinking that you go by, not the views of one person.

It can take only ONE reproducible paper from one person to upend a whole science field. It has happened before.

You have no point to sell here.

Actually, that is not true! If someone does an "upending study", it will not change current thinking until it has been replicated several times. Also, upending studies are usually quickly followed by critique papers. The critiques not only point out the weaknesses in the study (and there are always weaknesses in a single study), but also point to how the replication of the study should be done in a never ending pursuit of the truth.

So no, one study does not overturn "current thinking!" There is a process to all of this, and it is part of the "scientific method."

You are a funny guy who contradicts himself painfully here since you make clear you are lover of the AGW conjecture, which is MODEL driven research, that does not conform to the Scientific Method.

Yes there have been research that does up end a consensus paradigm, but doesn't get appreciated for a while because of entrenched belief system getting in the way. You can't be that ignorant of this?

There are a LOT of known weaknesses of the AGW conjecture, but your refuse to accept them is because you have been brainwashed to believe in it. You don't know why you do it, but you do it automatically and will ignore contrary research that clearly refutes it.

News flash! This is not about me! If you think there is a lot of weakness or whatever you are free to post. Yet, again, my personality is not the issue - just as the personality of a scientist is not relevant to the research he or she does. So give up on the name calling!

I do not know how much you know about the scientific method. It is probably more complex than you imagine, because models are used in the process. And yes, the weaknesses are discussed by the scientist just as error bars are added to scientific data. Yet, using models is perfectly acceptable.

A quick example, the scientifically correct or best way to link a disease to a bacterium is with Koch's Postulate. This involves isolating the bacteria from a sick person, giving it to a healthy person and watching them get sick, and then isolating the bacteria from the person that you infected.

Obviously, you cannot do that with diseases like HIV, or HPV. So they use a different standard call "causal medical inference." Turns out 90% of all medical knowledge was established by causal medical inference. Watch the video and learn, he mentions climate change! You will learn that science is more complex than you imagine.

I see that you KNOW you can't address this:

"You are a funny guy who contradicts himself painfully here since you make clear you are lover of the AGW conjecture, which is MODEL driven research, that does not conform to the Scientific Method."

This is why you are deflecting.

The Scientific Method REQUIRES that it be reproducible before it can be useful for further research. Failed papers gets tossed aside for a good reason, which is why consensus pablums doesn't work. Reproducible research will work.

Climate Models to year 2100 doesn't work because it is untestable, therefore becomes a dead end. The AGW science is already a dead end anyway, because the few short term prediction/projections have utterly failed.

Failed in several ways that is normally enough to kill a conjecture/hypothesis:

Per Decade warming trend = FAILED

"Hot spot" = FAILED

Increasing storminess = FAILED

Decreasing cold and Snowfall = FAILED

One FAILURE was enough 4 becomes a steam roll.

Why do you continue to defend the AGW conjecture?

You are demonstrating that you know very little science - take this comment, "The Scientific Method REQUIRES that it be reproducible before it can be useful for further research." The video explained that humans cannot test all ideas for the kind of reproducibility you are demanding, and scientists, long ago, added other techniques to the scientific method. You just do not seem to know about those techniques.

It appears that you are pretending that all of science must be like physics - or at least what you think physics is. That is, if you drop a rock that same acceleration occurs every time. But, sadly for you, the universe is not like that. There is a famous Einstein quote - in which Einstein was wrong - that goes "God does not play dice!" Well, God does play dice - even in physics when you deal with quantum mechanics.

All of this means that science - from physics to climate change to psychology - has to deal with probability. That means valid scientific ideas are true within the probability framework.

In the case of the items you mentioned, you do not know if the idea failed or if the idea could not be seen within the "background noise" limits of the data. You again do not understand how this works.

Climate change, as the video explain, has been demonstrated to be true by way of causal inference. We have used causal inference for 90% of our medical knowledge. If you want to throw out climate change because of causal inference, than there is a truckload of medical knowledge that goes with it. More to the point, if the medical knowledge found by causal inference has proven valuable - and it has - then the climate change knowledge has the same value. Unless, you want to be guilty of cherry picking.

In the end, causal inference is better than being so stupid as to replace it with "We know nothing!" And that is what you are suggesting we do!

 

[Sunsettommy]

Gawad you are amazing!

Probability is a STANDARD measure in every science research. The IPCC reports use it all the time!

You idiotically write:

"In the case of the items you mentioned, you do not know if the idea failed or if the idea could not be seen within the "background noise" limits of the data. You again do not understand how this works."

No the IPCC published SPECIFIC prediction/projection based on emission modeling scenarios (Guesses). I have read them, applied the official temperature data to them to know that AGW conjecture is a failure.

Here is but one example, from the 1990 IPCC:

"Based on current model results, we predict:

• under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0 3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0 2°C to 0 5°C per decade), this is greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years This will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1°C above the present value by 2025..."

bolding mine

Satellite data shows half that rate:

but it gets worse when you use the 2001 IPCC report that states specifically of a MINIMUM of .30C per decade, on then current emission scenarios which are now too low. Which means the warming rate is now only a THIRD of the projected rate, when you account for the much higher than expected emission rate.

This is WHY warmists almost stopped referring to the IPCC reports anymore after their failures were made known.

You need to stop here since you are running on evasions and tortured deflections.

 

[skookerasbil]

SunsetTommy's schooling the religion again

 

[Sunsettommy]

SunsetTommy's schooling the religion again

The problem is they never learn.

They just post evasive bull crap in replies.

 

[skookerasbil]

It can take only ONE reproducible paper from one person to upend a whole science field. It has happened before.

You have no point to sell here.

Actually, that is not true! If someone does an "upending study", it will not change current thinking until it has been replicated several times. Also, upending studies are usually quickly followed by critique papers. The critiques not only point out the weaknesses in the study (and there are always weaknesses in a single study), but also point to how the replication of the study should be done in a never ending pursuit of the truth.

So no, one study does not overturn "current thinking!" There is a process to all of this, and it is part of the "scientific method."

You are a funny guy who contradicts himself painfully here since you make clear you are lover of the AGW conjecture, which is MODEL driven research, that does not conform to the Scientific Method.

Yes there have been research that does up end a consensus paradigm, but doesn't get appreciated for a while because of entrenched belief system getting in the way. You can't be that ignorant of this?

There are a LOT of known weaknesses of the AGW conjecture, but your refuse to accept them is because you have been brainwashed to believe in it. You don't know why you do it, but you do it automatically and will ignore contrary research that clearly refutes it.

News flash! This is not about me! If you think there is a lot of weakness or whatever you are free to post. Yet, again, my personality is not the issue - just as the personality of a scientist is not relevant to the research he or she does. So give up on the name calling!

I do not know how much you know about the scientific method. It is probably more complex than you imagine, because models are used in the process. And yes, the weaknesses are discussed by the scientist just as error bars are added to scientific data. Yet, using models is perfectly acceptable.

A quick example, the scientifically correct or best way to link a disease to a bacterium is with Koch's Postulate. This involves isolating the bacteria from a sick person, giving it to a healthy person and watching them get sick, and then isolating the bacteria from the person that you infected.

Obviously, you cannot do that with diseases like HIV, or HPV. So they use a different standard call "causal medical inference." Turns out 90% of all medical knowledge was established by causal medical inference. Watch the video and learn, he mentions climate change! You will learn that science is more complex than you imagine.

I see that you KNOW you can't address this:

"You are a funny guy who contradicts himself painfully here since you make clear you are lover of the AGW conjecture, which is MODEL driven research, that does not conform to the Scientific Method."

This is why you are deflecting.

The Scientific Method REQUIRES that it be reproducible before it can be useful for further research. Failed papers gets tossed aside for a good reason, which is why consensus pablums doesn't work. Reproducible research will work.

Climate Models to year 2100 doesn't work because it is untestable, therefore becomes a dead end. The AGW science is already a dead end anyway, because the few short term prediction/projections have utterly failed.

Failed in several ways that is normally enough to kill a conjecture/hypothesis:

Per Decade warming trend = FAILED

"Hot spot" = FAILED

Increasing storminess = FAILED

Decreasing cold and Snowfall = FAILED

One FAILURE was enough 4 becomes a steam roll.

Why do you continue to defend the AGW conjecture?

You are demonstrating that you know very little science - take this comment, "The Scientific Method REQUIRES that it be reproducible before it can be useful for further research." The video explained that humans cannot test all ideas for the kind of reproducibility you are demanding, and scientists, long ago, added other techniques to the scientific method. You just do not seem to know about those techniques.

It appears that you are pretending that all of science must be like physics - or at least what you think physics is. That is, if you drop a rock that same acceleration occurs every time. But, sadly for you, the universe is not like that. There is a famous Einstein quote - in which Einstein was wrong - that goes "God does not play dice!" Well, God does play dice - even in physics when you deal with quantum mechanics.

All of this means that science - from physics to climate change to psychology - has to deal with probability. That means valid scientific ideas are true within the probability framework.

In the case of the items you mentioned, you do not know if the idea failed or if the idea could not be seen within the "background noise" limits of the data. You again do not understand how this works.

Climate change, as the video explain, has been demonstrated to be true by way of causal inference. We have used causal inference for 90% of our medical knowledge. If you want to throw out climate change because of causal inference, than there is a truckload of medical knowledge that goes with it. More to the point, if the medical knowledge found by causal inference has proven valuable - and it has - then the climate change knowledge has the same value. Unless, you want to be guilty of cherry picking.

In the end, causal inference is better than being so stupid as to replace it with "We know nothing!" And that is what you are suggesting we do!

LMAO.....

".....you don't know about techniques added to the scientific method....."



Hey Sunset.....how ghey is makey-uppey science?

 

[T.E.C. - Iowa]

Gawad you are amazing!

Probability is a STANDARD measure in every science research. The IPCC reports use it all the time!

You idiotically write:

"In the case of the items you mentioned, you do not know if the idea failed or if the idea could not be seen within the "background noise" limits of the data. You again do not understand how this works."

No the IPCC published SPECIFIC prediction/projection based on emission modeling scenarios (Guesses). I have read them, applied the official temperature data to them to know that AGW conjecture is a failure.

Here is but one example, from the 1990 IPCC:

"Based on current model results, we predict:

• under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0 3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0 2°C to 0 5°C per decade), this is greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years This will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1°C above the present value by 2025..."

bolding mine

Satellite data shows half that rate:

View attachment 187537

but it gets worse when you use the 2001 IPCC report that states specifically of a MINIMUM of .30C per decade, on then current emission scenarios which are now too low. Which means the warming rate is now only a THIRD of the projected rate, when you account for the much higher than expected emission rate.

This is WHY warmists almost stopped referring to the IPCC reports anymore after their failures were made known.

You need to stop here since you are running on evasions and tortured deflections.

Your first quote reads during "the next century of about 0 3°C per decade." So, let us wait until the century is over to see what happens. But more to the point, I did not see you allowing for this part of the quote "with an uncertainty range of 0 2°C to 0 5°C per decade." Now, your error is quite small, and this could easily be hiding in the noise in YOUR graph.

The reason noise can hide a trend is that in a given decade the noise level can be higher then normal. You have to remember that until recently, with improved models, even if climate scientists would say what might happen "per decade over a century", they would not even talk about a single decade. In fact, if you look at your graph, you have a noise level in places of a whole degree.

Yet, about models, predictions are just that, predictions. Everyone knows that climate systems are complex, and when you are using models it should not surprise anyone that those models are not a "perfect" predictor.

What you are really doing is attacking the idea of using models, because you want to argue that they are not accurate enough for YOUR view of science - as you did in your last post with "MODEL driven research, that does not conform to the Scientific Method."

So you do not like climate scientists using models. Tell that to the weather people who use models every day. Tell that to the biologists who model ecosystems from national parks to ocean fisheries to determine catch limits. Tell that to the urban planners who use models to determine how and where to build roads.

Now, in all of these examples, the projected outcomes are not always what they expect, but that does not make models useless. In fact, if you went to all of these "scientists" and told them that "MODEL driven research does not conform to the Scientific Method", they would think you are the dumbest person on the planet.

 

[Sunsettommy]

T.E.C. writes,

"Your first quote reads during "the next century of about 0 3°C per decade." So, let us wait until the century is over to see what happens. But more to the point, I did not see you allowing for this part of the quote "with an uncertainty range of 0 2°C to 0 5°C per decade." Now, your error is quite small, and this could easily be hiding in the noise in YOUR graph."

Actually the uncertainty range is large as .50C is more than DOUBLE of .20C

True that .30C is the average but after almost 3 decades, it has NEVER been close to the minimum .20C level and with just 6 full years left waaaay behind the PREDICTED 1C by 2025. The Satellite chart shows only a .40C warming total since 1990 with more and more scientists forecasting a small cooling trend in the near future......

It is clear you didn't think this out because the 1990 Emission Scenario A, is already way too low for this decade since yearly CO2 emissions have greatly increased since the 1990's thus a .40C per decade is now more likely the level it should be.

However in the 2001 IPCC report they got rid of the uncertainty range altogether to say it should be a MINIMUM of .30C per Decade and possibly even more based on what emission scenario you chose. Want to see how big a failure it is since 2001?

UAH Satellite data

.25C total in nearly two decades. EPIC fail!

It is even worse than it was in 1990!

Since ALL warming events has been due to El-Nino's, there is little room left for CO2 to warm up something. You can see several El-Nino's in the chart.

It is you who is dumb since you fail to acknowledge that it is always well behind the predicted warming trend.

 

[Sunsettommy]

T.E.C. writes,

"Yet, about models, predictions are just that, predictions. Everyone knows that climate systems are complex, and when you are using models it should not surprise anyone that those models are not a "perfect" predictor.

What you are really doing is attacking the idea of using models, because you want to argue that they are not accurate enough for YOUR view of science - as you did in your last post with "MODEL driven research, that does not conform to the Scientific Method."

The IPCC uses GCM to make far into the future (Year 2100, 3100) temperature projections based on the standard AGW conjecture. The big problem is the lack of testability, which means a dead end. When it is this way, rational researchers would drop it to something else.

Science prospers when published papers are testable and reproducible, which can then advance to the next level. Using far into the future modeling scenarios (over 100 of them) to year 2100, fails the Falsification and reproducibility test, thus worthless.

It is laughable to rely on such voodoo pseudoscience!

 

[T.E.C. - Iowa]

T.E.C. writes,

"Yet, about models, predictions are just that, predictions. Everyone knows that climate systems are complex, and when you are using models it should not surprise anyone that those models are not a "perfect" predictor.

What you are really doing is attacking the idea of using models, because you want to argue that they are not accurate enough for YOUR view of science - as you did in your last post with "MODEL driven research, that does not conform to the Scientific Method."

The IPCC uses GCM to make far into the future (Year 2100, 3100) temperature projections based on the standard AGW conjecture. The big problem is the lack of testability, which means a dead end. When it is this way, rational researchers would drop it to something else.

Science prospers when published papers are testable and reproducible, which can then advance to the next level. Using far into the future modeling scenarios (over 100 of them) to year 2100, fails the Falsification and reproducibility test, thus worthless.

It is laughable to rely on such voodoo pseudoscience!

Okay, now you are being just dumb when you write, "The big problem is the lack of testability, which means a dead end." I put up a video on "causal inference" and you learned nothing. The idea that smoking causes cancer was never "tested." It was demonstrated by causal inference to be true and both the scientists and the American judicial system accepted it as true.

Frankly, this statement demonstrates that you have a childish view of how science operates, "Science prospers when published papers are testable and reproducible."

The point here is, this "thing" you think of as a "big failure" is not viewed the same way by the climate science community and you cannot bring yourself to ask, "Why is this data viewed as okay!" Which it is! Instead, you have decided that you are smarter. But let me address the idea that you and the other climate deniers are smarter, because I find it interesting that some still deny climate change.

For starters, they have to believe they are smarter than those who have studied climate their whole lives. Oh, I know, the deniers think it is all a conspiracy by hundreds of scientist, and that there is no disinformation campaign from the fossil fuel industry.

Yet, the deniers must also think they are smarter than the people in the "National Association of Insurance Commissioners. It seems the insurance industry thinks climate change is real, and they have big bucks hanging in the balance. The report "Climate Change and Risk Disclosure" at the NAIC web site says this:

(Quote)

Disclosure of climate risk is important because of the potential impact climate change can have on insurer solvency and the availability and affordability of insurance across all major categories. Munich Re found that weather related losses have increased nearly fourfold in the United States since 1980. (snip) Experts predict climate change will continue to intensify the frequency and severity of these types of weather related events. Given these trends, it is important for insurers to identify climate-related factors and evaluate how they will impact their business and the exposures they indemnify.

(End quote)

Then the deniers must also think they are smarter then the best minds in the US military. In January of 2018, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense put out the report "Department of Defense Climate-Related Risk to DoD Infrastructure Initial Vulnerability Assessment Survey Report."

The report warns that if extreme temperatures, wind storms, flooding due to storm surge, and wildfires become worse from climate change nearly 50% of the US bases could be impacted.

It must be nice to go around every day thinking you are smarter than all of these people, but it does not stop there. Deniers must also think they are smarter than the best minds in the fossil fuel industry, because the people in the fossil fuel industry have known for decades that carbon dioxide driven climate change is real. In the article "Documenting the Fossil Fuel Industry’s Climate Deception", you find this:

(Quote)

Spanning nearly three decades, these documents reveal that the world’s largest fossil fuel companies—BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, coal giant Peabody Energy, and Shell—were fully aware of the reality of climate change but continued to spend tens of millions of dollars to sow doubt and promote contrarian arguments they knew to be wrong. Taken together, the documents show that these six companies, in conjunction with the American Petroleum Institute (API)—the oil and gas industry’s premier trade association—and a host of front groups, have colluded to intentionally deceive the public; their corporate officials have known for at least two decades that their products are harmful; and their disinformation campaign continues today—despite the fact that most of the companies now publicly acknowledge the reality of anthropogenic, or human-caused, climate change.

(End quote)

Wow, those deniers must think they are such geniuses that no one can fool them. Too bad the fossil fuel industry did just that!

And don't get me started on the cities and other groups that are suing the fossil fuel industry over damages. This will end the same way the cigarette problem did. It will end this way, because both issues were demonstrated as true by way of "causal inference." Then the deniers can say they are smarter than the American judicial system.

PS: The real tragedy of the climate deniers is there are other reasons to get off this 18th century energy system called fossil fuels. I live in Iowa and we get our electricity from Omaha, Nebraska. Just think of the economic stimulus to our community if we put up so much wind and solar that the town no longer sent any money to Omaha. Rather, the money stayed in the community. Yet, deniers want no part of that, because it sounds too much like that demon-spawned socialism.

 

[Sunsettommy]

T.E.C. writes,

"Yet, about models, predictions are just that, predictions. Everyone knows that climate systems are complex, and when you are using models it should not surprise anyone that those models are not a "perfect" predictor.

What you are really doing is attacking the idea of using models, because you want to argue that they are not accurate enough for YOUR view of science - as you did in your last post with "MODEL driven research, that does not conform to the Scientific Method."

The IPCC uses GCM to make far into the future (Year 2100, 3100) temperature projections based on the standard AGW conjecture. The big problem is the lack of testability, which means a dead end. When it is this way, rational researchers would drop it to something else.

Science prospers when published papers are testable and reproducible, which can then advance to the next level. Using far into the future modeling scenarios (over 100 of them) to year 2100, fails the Falsification and reproducibility test, thus worthless.

It is laughable to rely on such voodoo pseudoscience!

Okay, now you are being just dumb when you write, "The big problem is the lack of testability, which means a dead end." I put up a video on "causal inference" and you learned nothing. The idea that smoking causes cancer was never "tested." It was demonstrated by causal inference to be true and both the scientists and the American judicial system accepted it as true.

Frankly, this statement demonstrates that you have a childish view of how science operates, "Science prospers when published papers are testable and reproducible."

The point here is, this "thing" you think of as a "big failure" is not viewed the same way by the climate science community and you cannot bring yourself to ask, "Why is this data viewed as okay!" Which it is! Instead, you have decided that you are smarter. But let me address the idea that you and the other climate deniers are smarter, because I find it interesting that some still deny climate change.

For starters, they have to believe they are smarter than those who have studied climate their whole lives. Oh, I know, the deniers think it is all a conspiracy by hundreds of scientist, and that there is no disinformation campaign from the fossil fuel industry.

Yet, the deniers must also think they are smarter than the people in the "National Association of Insurance Commissioners. It seems the insurance industry thinks climate change is real, and they have big bucks hanging in the balance. The report "Climate Change and Risk Disclosure" at the NAIC web site says this:

(Quote)

Disclosure of climate risk is important because of the potential impact climate change can have on insurer solvency and the availability and affordability of insurance across all major categories. Munich Re found that weather related losses have increased nearly fourfold in the United States since 1980. (snip) Experts predict climate change will continue to intensify the frequency and severity of these types of weather related events. Given these trends, it is important for insurers to identify climate-related factors and evaluate how they will impact their business and the exposures they indemnify.

(End quote)

Then the deniers must also think they are smarter then the best minds in the US military. In January of 2018, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense put out the report "Department of Defense Climate-Related Risk to DoD Infrastructure Initial Vulnerability Assessment Survey Report."

The report warns that if extreme temperatures, wind storms, flooding due to storm surge, and wildfires become worse from climate change nearly 50% of the US bases could be impacted.

It must be nice to go around every day thinking you are smarter than all of these people, but it does not stop there. Deniers must also think they are smarter than the best minds in the fossil fuel industry, because the people in the fossil fuel industry have known for decades that carbon dioxide driven climate change is real. In the article "Documenting the Fossil Fuel Industry’s Climate Deception", you find this:

(Quote)

Spanning nearly three decades, these documents reveal that the world’s largest fossil fuel companies—BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, coal giant Peabody Energy, and Shell—were fully aware of the reality of climate change but continued to spend tens of millions of dollars to sow doubt and promote contrarian arguments they knew to be wrong. Taken together, the documents show that these six companies, in conjunction with the American Petroleum Institute (API)—the oil and gas industry’s premier trade association—and a host of front groups, have colluded to intentionally deceive the public; their corporate officials have known for at least two decades that their products are harmful; and their disinformation campaign continues today—despite the fact that most of the companies now publicly acknowledge the reality of anthropogenic, or human-caused, climate change.

(End quote)

Wow, those deniers must think they are such geniuses that no one can fool them. Too bad the fossil fuel industry did just that!

And don't get me started on the cities and other groups that are suing the fossil fuel industry over damages. This will end the same way the cigarette problem did. It will end this way, because both issues were demonstrated as true by way of "causal inference." Then the deniers can say they are smarter than the American judicial system.

PS: The real tragedy of the climate deniers is there are other reasons to get off this 18th century energy system called fossil fuels. I live in Iowa and we get our electricity from Omaha, Nebraska. Just think of the economic stimulus to our community if we put up so much wind and solar that the town no longer sent any money to Omaha. Rather, the money stayed in the community. Yet, deniers want no part of that, because it sounds too much like that demon-spawned socialism.

Your ugly, fact free, rational free comment was dead on arrival.

The real tragedy is ignoring the few well proven AGW failures.

Carry on.

 

[Billy_Bob]

T.E.C. writes,

"Yet, about models, predictions are just that, predictions. Everyone knows that climate systems are complex, and when you are using models it should not surprise anyone that those models are not a "perfect" predictor.

What you are really doing is attacking the idea of using models, because you want to argue that they are not accurate enough for YOUR view of science - as you did in your last post with "MODEL driven research, that does not conform to the Scientific Method."

The IPCC uses GCM to make far into the future (Year 2100, 3100) temperature projections based on the standard AGW conjecture. The big problem is the lack of testability, which means a dead end. When it is this way, rational researchers would drop it to something else.

Science prospers when published papers are testable and reproducible, which can then advance to the next level. Using far into the future modeling scenarios (over 100 of them) to year 2100, fails the Falsification and reproducibility test, thus worthless.

It is laughable to rely on such voodoo pseudoscience!

Okay, now you are being just dumb when you write, "The big problem is the lack of testability, which means a dead end." I put up a video on "causal inference" and you learned nothing. The idea that smoking causes cancer was never "tested." It was demonstrated by causal inference to be true and both the scientists and the American judicial system accepted it as true.

Frankly, this statement demonstrates that you have a childish view of how science operates, "Science prospers when published papers are testable and reproducible."

The point here is, this "thing" you think of as a "big failure" is not viewed the same way by the climate science community and you cannot bring yourself to ask, "Why is this data viewed as okay!" Which it is! Instead, you have decided that you are smarter. But let me address the idea that you and the other climate deniers are smarter, because I find it interesting that some still deny climate change.

For starters, they have to believe they are smarter than those who have studied climate their whole lives. Oh, I know, the deniers think it is all a conspiracy by hundreds of scientist, and that there is no disinformation campaign from the fossil fuel industry.

Yet, the deniers must also think they are smarter than the people in the "National Association of Insurance Commissioners. It seems the insurance industry thinks climate change is real, and they have big bucks hanging in the balance. The report "Climate Change and Risk Disclosure" at the NAIC web site says this:

(Quote)

Disclosure of climate risk is important because of the potential impact climate change can have on insurer solvency and the availability and affordability of insurance across all major categories. Munich Re found that weather related losses have increased nearly fourfold in the United States since 1980. (snip) Experts predict climate change will continue to intensify the frequency and severity of these types of weather related events. Given these trends, it is important for insurers to identify climate-related factors and evaluate how they will impact their business and the exposures they indemnify.

(End quote)

Then the deniers must also think they are smarter then the best minds in the US military. In January of 2018, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense put out the report "Department of Defense Climate-Related Risk to DoD Infrastructure Initial Vulnerability Assessment Survey Report."

The report warns that if extreme temperatures, wind storms, flooding due to storm surge, and wildfires become worse from climate change nearly 50% of the US bases could be impacted.

It must be nice to go around every day thinking you are smarter than all of these people, but it does not stop there. Deniers must also think they are smarter than the best minds in the fossil fuel industry, because the people in the fossil fuel industry have known for decades that carbon dioxide driven climate change is real. In the article "Documenting the Fossil Fuel Industry’s Climate Deception", you find this:

(Quote)

Spanning nearly three decades, these documents reveal that the world’s largest fossil fuel companies—BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, coal giant Peabody Energy, and Shell—were fully aware of the reality of climate change but continued to spend tens of millions of dollars to sow doubt and promote contrarian arguments they knew to be wrong. Taken together, the documents show that these six companies, in conjunction with the American Petroleum Institute (API)—the oil and gas industry’s premier trade association—and a host of front groups, have colluded to intentionally deceive the public; their corporate officials have known for at least two decades that their products are harmful; and their disinformation campaign continues today—despite the fact that most of the companies now publicly acknowledge the reality of anthropogenic, or human-caused, climate change.

(End quote)

Wow, those deniers must think they are such geniuses that no one can fool them. Too bad the fossil fuel industry did just that!

And don't get me started on the cities and other groups that are suing the fossil fuel industry over damages. This will end the same way the cigarette problem did. It will end this way, because both issues were demonstrated as true by way of "causal inference." Then the deniers can say they are smarter than the American judicial system.

PS: The real tragedy of the climate deniers is there are other reasons to get off this 18th century energy system called fossil fuels. I live in Iowa and we get our electricity from Omaha, Nebraska. Just think of the economic stimulus to our community if we put up so much wind and solar that the town no longer sent any money to Omaha. Rather, the money stayed in the community. Yet, deniers want no part of that, because it sounds too much like that demon-spawned socialism.

Circular fantasy logic...

Lets pretend that climate models are of an airplane. Each time they are run the models fails and the plane zooms away much faster and higher. Knowing this is unrealistic and not possible you want to build and get on this plane. SO you build it and when it its tried the plane fails to act like your model predicts and it never gets off the ground.

What is your answer to this? Is it to change the observed data and say it flew (as you climate fear-mongers are doing)or is it to assess your model and figure out why it did not match reality?

I think it is clearly ludicrous that the insurance industry takes models that fail empirical review and then apply a money cost "if this happened" knowing that every single model fails empirical review. Using this dollar amount by idiots to prop up or give AGW legitimacy when it is demonstrably pure fantasy.

 

[Billy_Bob]

In the end, causal inference is better than being so stupid as to replace it with "We know nothing!" And that is what you are suggesting we do!

Correlation does not infer Causation....

This is why most real scientists understand the paradoxical presentation of the earths climatic systems.

IT rather funny how you use this as a method that doctors are using to create medications. Did you know that 85% of a medications negative effects are missed because of this bastardization of science?

 

[T.E.C. - Iowa]

In the end, causal inference is better than being so stupid as to replace it with "We know nothing!" And that is what you are suggesting we do!

Correlation does not infer Causation....

This is why most real scientists understand the paradoxical presentation of the earths climatic systems.

IT rather funny how you use this as a method that doctors are using to create medications. Did you know that 85% of a medications negative effects are missed because of this bastardization of science?

About this comment, "Correlation does not infer Causation...." "Causal inference" is much more than correlation. You do not know about either "causal inference" or the statistics that goes with it. Go learn about the topic before posting!

About "85% of a medications negative effects are missed because of this bastardization of science?" If there is bastard science, and there is; it comes from capitalisms desire for profits even if it screws you over - physically, mentally, or any other way you can think of!

For example, everyone should be well aware of the research sponsored by the tobacco industry in defense of its products. The same is true of the fossil fuel industry and the bogus science it pays for to undermine climate change.

And finally, you have America's drug industry. If you have not figure out that they will kill you for a buck, you have not been paying attention. For example, I found this quote:

(Quote)

In a plea agreement with a federal court, Merck will pay a $321 million fine in exchange for a guilty plea to a misdemeanor for the illegal promotion of Vioxx for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, before it was approved for that use. Vioxx caused the deaths of more than 60,000 people, and was withdrawn from the market in 2004 when it became apparent that it was causing heart attacks

(End quote)

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Westchester NY. Heat in the house came on this morning. Spring long global cooling keeps temperatures in the 30's

 

[T.E.C. - Iowa]

T.E.C. writes,

"Yet, about models, predictions are just that, predictions. Everyone knows that climate systems are complex, and when you are using models it should not surprise anyone that those models are not a "perfect" predictor.

What you are really doing is attacking the idea of using models, because you want to argue that they are not accurate enough for YOUR view of science - as you did in your last post with "MODEL driven research, that does not conform to the Scientific Method."

The IPCC uses GCM to make far into the future (Year 2100, 3100) temperature projections based on the standard AGW conjecture. The big problem is the lack of testability, which means a dead end. When it is this way, rational researchers would drop it to something else.

Science prospers when published papers are testable and reproducible, which can then advance to the next level. Using far into the future modeling scenarios (over 100 of them) to year 2100, fails the Falsification and reproducibility test, thus worthless.

It is laughable to rely on such voodoo pseudoscience!

Okay, now you are being just dumb when you write, "The big problem is the lack of testability, which means a dead end." I put up a video on "causal inference" and you learned nothing. The idea that smoking causes cancer was never "tested." It was demonstrated by causal inference to be true and both the scientists and the American judicial system accepted it as true.

Frankly, this statement demonstrates that you have a childish view of how science operates, "Science prospers when published papers are testable and reproducible."

The point here is, this "thing" you think of as a "big failure" is not viewed the same way by the climate science community and you cannot bring yourself to ask, "Why is this data viewed as okay!" Which it is! Instead, you have decided that you are smarter. But let me address the idea that you and the other climate deniers are smarter, because I find it interesting that some still deny climate change.

For starters, they have to believe they are smarter than those who have studied climate their whole lives. Oh, I know, the deniers think it is all a conspiracy by hundreds of scientist, and that there is no disinformation campaign from the fossil fuel industry.

Yet, the deniers must also think they are smarter than the people in the "National Association of Insurance Commissioners. It seems the insurance industry thinks climate change is real, and they have big bucks hanging in the balance. The report "Climate Change and Risk Disclosure" at the NAIC web site says this:

(Quote)

Disclosure of climate risk is important because of the potential impact climate change can have on insurer solvency and the availability and affordability of insurance across all major categories. Munich Re found that weather related losses have increased nearly fourfold in the United States since 1980. (snip) Experts predict climate change will continue to intensify the frequency and severity of these types of weather related events. Given these trends, it is important for insurers to identify climate-related factors and evaluate how they will impact their business and the exposures they indemnify.

(End quote)

Then the deniers must also think they are smarter then the best minds in the US military. In January of 2018, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense put out the report "Department of Defense Climate-Related Risk to DoD Infrastructure Initial Vulnerability Assessment Survey Report."

The report warns that if extreme temperatures, wind storms, flooding due to storm surge, and wildfires become worse from climate change nearly 50% of the US bases could be impacted.

It must be nice to go around every day thinking you are smarter than all of these people, but it does not stop there. Deniers must also think they are smarter than the best minds in the fossil fuel industry, because the people in the fossil fuel industry have known for decades that carbon dioxide driven climate change is real. In the article "Documenting the Fossil Fuel Industry’s Climate Deception", you find this:

(Quote)

Spanning nearly three decades, these documents reveal that the world’s largest fossil fuel companies—BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, coal giant Peabody Energy, and Shell—were fully aware of the reality of climate change but continued to spend tens of millions of dollars to sow doubt and promote contrarian arguments they knew to be wrong. Taken together, the documents show that these six companies, in conjunction with the American Petroleum Institute (API)—the oil and gas industry’s premier trade association—and a host of front groups, have colluded to intentionally deceive the public; their corporate officials have known for at least two decades that their products are harmful; and their disinformation campaign continues today—despite the fact that most of the companies now publicly acknowledge the reality of anthropogenic, or human-caused, climate change.

(End quote)

Wow, those deniers must think they are such geniuses that no one can fool them. Too bad the fossil fuel industry did just that!

And don't get me started on the cities and other groups that are suing the fossil fuel industry over damages. This will end the same way the cigarette problem did. It will end this way, because both issues were demonstrated as true by way of "causal inference." Then the deniers can say they are smarter than the American judicial system.

PS: The real tragedy of the climate deniers is there are other reasons to get off this 18th century energy system called fossil fuels. I live in Iowa and we get our electricity from Omaha, Nebraska. Just think of the economic stimulus to our community if we put up so much wind and solar that the town no longer sent any money to Omaha. Rather, the money stayed in the community. Yet, deniers want no part of that, because it sounds too much like that demon-spawned socialism.

Circular fantasy logic...

Lets pretend that climate models are of an airplane. Each time they are run the models fails and the plane zooms away much faster and higher. Knowing this is unrealistic and not possible you want to build and get on this plane. SO you build it and when it its tried the plane fails to act like your model predicts and it never gets off the ground.

What is your answer to this? Is it to change the observed data and say it flew (as you climate fear-mongers are doing)or is it to assess your model and figure out why it did not match reality?

I think it is clearly ludicrous that the insurance industry takes models that fail empirical review and then apply a money cost "if this happened" knowing that every single model fails empirical review. Using this dollar amount by idiots to prop up or give AGW legitimacy when it is demonstrably pure fantasy.

About "Let's pretend that climate models are of an airplane." Let's not! Your comparison does not work. You are comparing something a simple as dropping a rock from a cliff (simple physics) with something as complex as the earth's weather - and yes, the weather people use models.

So let me rewrite what you have said and put it in a weather framework. Start with this "Each time they are run the models fails and the (weather is different and the storm takes a different path). Knowing this (you decide to tell the people in the path of the storm nothing. That is, you decide you know nothing)." That is what you are doing with climate change.

But to answer you, "What is your answer to this?" You add error bars or a range of error, and the scientist do!

Now you are claiming to be smarter than the experts in the insurance industry (and yes, they hire climate people) - as in this comment "I think it is clearly ludicrous that the insurance industry takes models that fail empirical review and then apply a money cost." It must give you warm fuzzy feelings to spend the day thinking you are so smart.

You may think it is "ludicrous", but maybe, just maybe, they know more than you do - as hard as that may be for you to imagine!

 

[T.E.C. - Iowa]

Westchester NY. Heat in the house came on this morning. Spring long global cooling keeps temperatures in the 30's

Westchester NY. Heat in the house came on this morning. Spring long global cooling keeps temperatures in the 30's

See post 5 in this thread!