Pseudoscience And Conspiracy Theory Are Not Victimless Crimes Against Science

[flacaltenn]

Teachable moment as CrickHam gets all indignant about abuse of the scientific method..

That's your response to an article advocating greater awareness of the scientific method?

Wow.... you should show that to your graduate advisor and see what they think.

Check the chart of the scientific method in the OP and explain to everyone why the GWarming circus STOPPED at "Formulate Hypotheses" and skipped over the next block to what they thought was "Alter Historical Data and Perceptions"

The next step is develop testable predictions, which they have done in spades. Are there any other stupid comments you care to make?

They have? Which ones..... Exactly?

Rising sea levels, increase in extreme weather, coral die offs, increase in oceanic dead zones, melting glaciers and permafrost, tropical diseases moving into more temperate zones, alteration of climate zones, etc., etc., etc.

Not at all O-man. Glaciers have been melting for 1000s of years. Coral reefs die from a myriad of causes in local enviros that have DAILY and YEARLY variations in temperature exceeding 10 times the observed "mean" warming. Even the PRIMARY projections of temperature increase didn't survive a decade.

Give me a testable hypothesis on the Global Mean Temperature for 2050.. One that doesn't vary by 5 times the average projection.
Have you seen a single extreme weather event attributed to the 0.5deg of warming in your lifetime? You're not hallucinating like the GoldiRocks are you?

Too many COULDs MIGHTs and POSSIBLIES to EVER be a "testable hypothesis".. That step never uses any of those words.

 

[mamooth]

Since the observed temperatures match the models very closely, that's clearly a testable prediction that came to pass.

Now, you deniers can lie your asses off and claim the models don't match reality, but everyone just laughs at that claim now. Stop relying so much on Goddard's fraud, and get some new material.

Other predictions that came to pass were the stratospheric cooling, polar amplification, outgoing longwave decrease, and backradiation increase. None of which can be explained by any "natural causes" argument. Since none of your theories match the observed data, your theories are considered to be junk.

 

[orogenicman]

Teachable moment as CrickHam gets all indignant about abuse of the scientific method..

That's your response to an article advocating greater awareness of the scientific method?

Wow.... you should show that to your graduate advisor and see what they think.

Check the chart of the scientific method in the OP and explain to everyone why the GWarming circus STOPPED at "Formulate Hypotheses" and skipped over the next block to what they thought was "Alter Historical Data and Perceptions"

The next step is develop testable predictions, which they have done in spades. Are there any other stupid comments you care to make?

They have? Which ones..... Exactly?

Rising sea levels, increase in extreme weather, coral die offs, increase in oceanic dead zones, melting glaciers and permafrost, tropical diseases moving into more temperate zones, alteration of climate zones, etc., etc., etc.

Not at all O-man. Glaciers have been melting for 1000s of years. Coral reefs die from a myriad of causes in local enviros that have DAILY and YEARLY variations in temperature exceeding 10 times the observed "mean" warming. Even the PRIMARY projections of temperature increase didn't survive a decade.

If you are trying to argue that the world's glaciers are not melting at increasing rates not seen in historical times, I'm afraid you are being willfully ignorant. I've studied marine invertebrates for many years, pal. The evidence is clear that the rate of die offs we are seeing today is unprecedented, and has clear human components (acidification and pollution).

Give me a testable hypothesis on the Global Mean Temperature for 2050.. One that doesn't vary by 5 times the average projection.

We weren't taking about testable hypotheses. We were discussing testable predictions. So stop changing the subject.

Have you seen a single extreme weather event attributed to the 0.5deg of warming in your lifetime? You're not hallucinating like the GoldiRocks are you?

Too many COULDs MIGHTs and POSSIBLIES to EVER be a "testable hypothesis".. That step never uses any of those words.

Increased flood risk linked to global warming Nature News

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7334/full/nature09763.html

Drought under global warming a review - Dai - 2010 - Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Climate Change - Wiley Online Library

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n7/full/nclimate1452.html

 

[ScienceRocks]

Lets be honest...Saying that there's no differences in our species is also pseudoscience. Global warming at least has real physics supporting it.

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[Billy_Bob]

Lets be honest...Saying that there's no differences in our species is also pseudoscience. Global warming at least has real physics supporting it.

Mann threw out 11 tree ring cuts and kept the two which were outliers.. Any real scientist would have kept the larger pool and done real research.. Mann, Jones, Briffa, Hansen, Cook, etc all have the same deficiency, they threw out all data that didn't support their position, thinking no one will see it or check their work. Dump all that doesn't fit your agenda and run with it... No matter how stupid you look doing it.

Karma is a ***** and she's coming around to bite them on the ass..

 

[jc456]

Since the observed temperatures match the models very closely, that's clearly a testable prediction that came to pass.

Now, you deniers can lie your asses off and claim the models don't match reality, but everyone just laughs at that claim now. Stop relying so much on Goddard's fraud, and get some new material.

Other predictions that came to pass were the stratospheric cooling, polar amplification, outgoing longwave decrease, and backradiation increase. None of which can be explained by any "natural causes" argument. Since none of your theories match the observed data, your theories are considered to be junk.

There's no back radiation, and like every other claim of yours, no evidence same old song bruh!

 

[Billy_Bob]

Since the observed temperatures match the models very closely, that's clearly a testable prediction that came to pass.

Now, you deniers can lie your asses off and claim the models don't match reality, but everyone just laughs at that claim now. Stop relying so much on Goddard's fraud, and get some new material.

Other predictions that came to pass were the stratospheric cooling, polar amplification, outgoing longwave decrease, and backradiation increase. None of which can be explained by any "natural causes" argument. Since none of your theories match the observed data, your theories are considered to be junk.

There's no back radiation, and like every other claim of yours, no evidence same old song bruh!

I asked one of my AGW believing students how they defined how much return radiation in the IR spectrum was man caused. He returned with a 1.1W/M^2 (@ earths surface) number for latitude 60N on June 21 (summer solstice). I then asked him how he came to that number as it would indeed create significant warming. He had made the mistake of re-emitance in only one direction. He assumed that the re-emitted radiation would always reflect towards earth. (an assumption in using the term back-radiation)

As we all know the photon will re-emit in any of the 360 X 360 directions. As the altitude increases the area earthward diminishes. At earths surface only about 32% is reemitted towards the earth. At just 1,000 feet less than 12% is reemitted, and at just 10,000 feet it drops to 4%. Above 10,000 feet the chance that any heat would reach the earth is essentially zero due to convection. Convection also diminishes the other amounts as well and increases the amount absorbed by water nearer the surface. At just 40% humidity CO2 is rendered null below 1,000 feet.

By applying basic physics principals to the molecules and their reactions, the so called 'back-radiation' is shown a non-issue. By the time we were done with the calculations, his 1.1W/M^2 was reduced to 0.02 W/M^2 (clear sky day).

'Back-radiation' is a very poor term and does not describe the process in any way accurately. Emitted radiation is not back-radiation. If it were my winter heating bills would be really low due to no loss. I have yet to get an alarmist to explain what percentage of mans contribution 0.0000034ppm is causing warming, to elaborate what that number is and how they derived it.

 

[orogenicman]

Since the observed temperatures match the models very closely, that's clearly a testable prediction that came to pass.

Now, you deniers can lie your asses off and claim the models don't match reality, but everyone just laughs at that claim now. Stop relying so much on Goddard's fraud, and get some new material.

Other predictions that came to pass were the stratospheric cooling, polar amplification, outgoing longwave decrease, and backradiation increase. None of which can be explained by any "natural causes" argument. Since none of your theories match the observed data, your theories are considered to be junk.

There's no back radiation, and like every other claim of yours, no evidence same old song bruh!

I asked one of my AGW believing students how they defined how much return radiation in the IR spectrum was man caused. He returned with a 1.1W/M^2 (@ earths surface) number for latitude 60N on June 21 (summer solstice). I then asked him how he came to that number as it would indeed create significant warming. He had made the mistake of re-emitance in only one direction. He assumed that the re-emitted radiation would always reflect towards earth. (an assumption in using the term back-radiation)

As we all know the photon will re-emit in any of the 360 X 360 directions. As the altitude increases the area earthward diminishes. At earths surface only about 32% is reemitted towards the earth. At just 1,000 feet less than 12% is reemitted, and at just 10,000 feet it drops to 4%. Above 10,000 feet the chance that any heat would reach the earth is essentially zero due to convection. Convection also diminishes the other amounts as well and increases the amount absorbed by water nearer the surface. At just 40% humidity CO2 is rendered null below 1,000 feet.

By applying basic physics principals to the molecules and their reactions, the so called 'back-radiation' is shown a non-issue. By the time we were done with the calculations, his 1.1W/M^2 was reduced to 0.02 W/M^2 (clear sky day).

'Back-radiation' is a very poor term and does not describe the process in any way accurately. Emitted radiation is not back-radiation. If it were my winter heating bills would be really low due to no loss. I have yet to get an alarmist to explain what percentage of mans contribution 0.0000034ppm is causing warming, to elaborate what that number is and how they derived it.

You seem to believe that convection dissipates the energy already absorbed into the atmosphere. It doesn't. If it did, it would violate the laws of thermodynamics.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Teachable moment as CrickHam gets all indignant about abuse of the scientific method..

That's your response to an article advocating greater awareness of the scientific method?

Wow.... you should show that to your graduate advisor and see what they think.

Check the chart of the scientific method in the OP and explain to everyone why the GWarming circus STOPPED at "Formulate Hypotheses" and skipped over the next block to what they thought was "Alter Historical Data and Perceptions"

The next step is develop testable predictions, which they have done in spades. Are there any other stupid comments you care to make?

Yes, they've produced all kinds of models.....

None of which worked.

Next.

 

[flacaltenn]

Teachable moment as CrickHam gets all indignant about abuse of the scientific method..


Check the chart of the scientific method in the OP and explain to everyone why the GWarming circus STOPPED at "Formulate Hypotheses" and skipped over the next block to what they thought was "Alter Historical Data and Perceptions"

The next step is develop testable predictions, which they have done in spades. Are there any other stupid comments you care to make?

They have? Which ones..... Exactly?

Rising sea levels, increase in extreme weather, coral die offs, increase in oceanic dead zones, melting glaciers and permafrost, tropical diseases moving into more temperate zones, alteration of climate zones, etc., etc., etc.

Not at allit hasnt O-man. Glaciers have been melting for 1000s of years. Coral reefs die from a myriad of causes in local enviros that have DAILY and YEARLY variations in temperature exceeding 10 times the observed "mean" warming. Even the PRIMARY projections of temperature increase didn't survive a decade.

If you are trying to argue that the world's glaciers are not melting at increasing rates not seen in historical times, I'm afraid you are being willfully ignorant. I've studied marine invertebrates for many years, pal. The evidence is clear that the rate of die offs we are seeing today is unprecedented, and has clear human components (acidification and pollution).

Give me a testable hypothesis on the Global Mean Temperature for 2050.. One that doesn't vary by 5 times the average projection.

We weren't taking about testable hypotheses. We were discussing testable predictions. So stop changing the subject.

Have you seen a single extreme weather event attributed to the 0.5deg of warming in your lifetime? You're not hallucinating like the GoldiRocks are you?

Too many COULDs MIGHTs and POSSIBLIES to EVER be a "testable hypothesis".. That step never uses any of those words.

Increased flood risk linked to global warming Nature News

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7334/full/nature09763.html

Drought under global warming a review - Dai - 2010 - Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Climate Change - Wiley Online Library

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n7/full/nclimate1452.html

Well, that 1st study Iis a good example of finding outcomes to fit your hypothesis. Its about trying to pin the floods in SW england in early 2000s to the warming incurred since about 1900. And each and every one of the 2300 weather years generated by their models NEVER HAPPENED. They are the ass end of a chain of cobbled simulators, that were initialized in APRIL and asked to run til NOVEMBER of that year. No where in the paper is a reality check against the one TRUE April to Nov weather of 2000. It is OK to run simulations of unknown accuracy and compare changes in initial values, but it is NOT OK to offer output differences as proof of causation unless they accurately predict actual events. They did not claim to find the floods of 2000 in SW England intheir results. They merely rolled the dice and made comments about the general probabilities of such events. If their claims had basis in the Real World ,,,,,,,, you would see evidence in the general rainfall recods for that region. THERE ARE NO SUCH TRENDS in the actual records. They are free to MAKE that claim, but this study does not prove it.

In my best Clint Eastwood,, You feeling lucky today punk.? You think you know the odds? Well make my day and make those claims.....

 

[IanC]

Since the observed temperatures match the models very closely, that's clearly a testable prediction that came to pass.

Now, you deniers can lie your asses off and claim the models don't match reality, but everyone just laughs at that claim now. Stop relying so much on Goddard's fraud, and get some new material.

Other predictions that came to pass were the stratospheric cooling, polar amplification, outgoing longwave decrease, and backradiation increase. None of which can be explained by any "natural causes" argument. Since none of your theories match the observed data, your theories are considered to be junk.

There's no back radiation, and like every other claim of yours, no evidence same old song bruh!

I asked one of my AGW believing students how they defined how much return radiation in the IR spectrum was man caused. He returned with a 1.1W/M^2 (@ earths surface) number for latitude 60N on June 21 (summer solstice). I then asked him how he came to that number as it would indeed create significant warming. He had made the mistake of re-emitance in only one direction. He assumed that the re-emitted radiation would always reflect towards earth. (an assumption in using the term back-radiation)

As we all know the photon will re-emit in any of the 360 X 360 directions. As the altitude increases the area earthward diminishes. At earths surface only about 32% is reemitted towards the earth. At just 1,000 feet less than 12% is reemitted, and at just 10,000 feet it drops to 4%. Above 10,000 feet the chance that any heat would reach the earth is essentially zero due to convection. Convection also diminishes the other amounts as well and increases the amount absorbed by water nearer the surface. At just 40% humidity CO2 is rendered null below 1,000 feet.

By applying basic physics principals to the molecules and their reactions, the so called 'back-radiation' is shown a non-issue. By the time we were done with the calculations, his 1.1W/M^2 was reduced to 0.02 W/M^2 (clear sky day).

'Back-radiation' is a very poor term and does not describe the process in any way accurately. Emitted radiation is not back-radiation. If it were my winter heating bills would be really low due to no loss. I have yet to get an alarmist to explain what percentage of mans contribution 0.0000034ppm is causing warming, to elaborate what that number is and how they derived it.

I wish you would proof read your comments before hitting the post reply button.

 

[orogenicman]

The next step is develop testable predictions, which they have done in spades. Are there any other stupid comments you care to make?

They have? Which ones..... Exactly?

Rising sea levels, increase in extreme weather, coral die offs, increase in oceanic dead zones, melting glaciers and permafrost, tropical diseases moving into more temperate zones, alteration of climate zones, etc., etc., etc.

Not at allit hasnt O-man. Glaciers have been melting for 1000s of years. Coral reefs die from a myriad of causes in local enviros that have DAILY and YEARLY variations in temperature exceeding 10 times the observed "mean" warming. Even the PRIMARY projections of temperature increase didn't survive a decade.

If you are trying to argue that the world's glaciers are not melting at increasing rates not seen in historical times, I'm afraid you are being willfully ignorant. I've studied marine invertebrates for many years, pal. The evidence is clear that the rate of die offs we are seeing today is unprecedented, and has clear human components (acidification and pollution).

Give me a testable hypothesis on the Global Mean Temperature for 2050.. One that doesn't vary by 5 times the average projection.

We weren't taking about testable hypotheses. We were discussing testable predictions. So stop changing the subject.

Have you seen a single extreme weather event attributed to the 0.5deg of warming in your lifetime? You're not hallucinating like the GoldiRocks are you?

Too many COULDs MIGHTs and POSSIBLIES to EVER be a "testable hypothesis".. That step never uses any of those words.

Increased flood risk linked to global warming Nature News

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7334/full/nature09763.html

Drought under global warming a review - Dai - 2010 - Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Climate Change - Wiley Online Library

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n7/full/nclimate1452.html

Well, that 1st study Iis a good example of finding outcomes to fit your hypothesis. Its about trying to pin the floods in SW england in early 2000s to the warming incurred since about 1900. And each and every one of the 2300 weather years generated by their models NEVER HAPPENED. They are the ass end of a chain of cobbled simulators, that were initialized in APRIL and asked to run til NOVEMBER of that year. No where in the paper is a reality check against the one TRUE April to Nov weather of 2000. It is OK to run simulations of unknown accuracy and compare changes in initial values, but it is NOT OK to offer output differences as proof of causation unless they accurately predict actual events. They did not claim to find the floods of 2000 in SW England intheir results. They merely rolled the dice and made comments about the general probabilities of such events. If their claims had basis in the Real World ,,,,,,,, you would see evidence in the general rainfall recods for that region. THERE ARE NO SUCH TRENDS in the actual records. They are free to MAKE that claim, but this study does not prove it.

In my best Clint Eastwood,, You feeling lucky today punk.? You think you know the odds? Well make my day and make those claims.....

Assuming that you plan to publish a refutation of that paper (you are planning to publish your conclusion, right?), let's move on to the others, shall we? No comments on those?

 

[flacaltenn]

They have? Which ones..... Exactly?

Rising sea levels, increase in extreme weather, coral die offs, increase in oceanic dead zones, melting glaciers and permafrost, tropical diseases moving into more temperate zones, alteration of climate zones, etc., etc., etc.

Not at allit hasnt O-man. Glaciers have been melting for 1000s of years. Coral reefs die from a myriad of causes in local enviros that have DAILY and YEARLY variations in temperature exceeding 10 times the observed "mean" warming. Even the PRIMARY projections of temperature increase didn't survive a decade.

If you are trying to argue that the world's glaciers are not melting at increasing rates not seen in historical times, I'm afraid you are being willfully ignorant. I've studied marine invertebrates for many years, pal. The evidence is clear that the rate of die offs we are seeing today is unprecedented, and has clear human components (acidification and pollution).

Give me a testable hypothesis on the Global Mean Temperature for 2050.. One that doesn't vary by 5 times the average projection.

We weren't taking about testable hypotheses. We were discussing testable predictions. So stop changing the subject.

Have you seen a single extreme weather event attributed to the 0.5deg of warming in your lifetime? You're not hallucinating like the GoldiRocks are you?

Too many COULDs MIGHTs and POSSIBLIES to EVER be a "testable hypothesis".. That step never uses any of those words.

Increased flood risk linked to global warming Nature News

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7334/full/nature09763.html

Drought under global warming a review - Dai - 2010 - Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Climate Change - Wiley Online Library

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n7/full/nclimate1452.html

Well, that 1st study Iis a good example of finding outcomes to fit your hypothesis. Its about trying to pin the floods in SW england in early 2000s to the warming incurred since about 1900. And each and every one of the 2300 weather years generated by their models NEVER HAPPENED. They are the ass end of a chain of cobbled simulators, that were initialized in APRIL and asked to run til NOVEMBER of that year. No where in the paper is a reality check against the one TRUE April to Nov weather of 2000. It is OK to run simulations of unknown accuracy and compare changes in initial values, but it is NOT OK to offer output differences as proof of causation unless they accurately predict actual events. They did not claim to find the floods of 2000 in SW England intheir results. They merely rolled the dice and made comments about the general probabilities of such events. If their claims had basis in the Real World ,,,,,,,, you would see evidence in the general rainfall recods for that region. THERE ARE NO SUCH TRENDS in the actual records. They are free to MAKE that claim, but this study does not prove it.

In my best Clint Eastwood,, You feeling lucky today punk.? You think you know the odds? Well make my day and make those claims.....

Assuming that you plan to publish a refutation of that paper (you are planning to publish your conclusion, right?), let's move on to the others, shall we? No comments on those?

Would LOVE to take a look at the others. Hopefully more robust INDICTMENTS of actual damage happening TODAY. I'm merely waiting for YOUR analysis of what was offered in that first paper.

If you think that simulator jockeys with a noble cause have PROVED that the Nov 2000 SW English floods were enhanced by a mere 0.5degC in warming --- tell me how this paper can be so vague about the actual tuning and assumptions of the simulations -- yet still be proof of anything.

It's interesting from the standpoint of tools they cobbled together. But that's about it..

 

[flacaltenn]

They have? Which ones..... Exactly?

Rising sea levels, increase in extreme weather, coral die offs, increase in oceanic dead zones, melting glaciers and permafrost, tropical diseases moving into more temperate zones, alteration of climate zones, etc., etc., etc.

Not at allit hasnt O-man. Glaciers have been melting for 1000s of years. Coral reefs die from a myriad of causes in local enviros that have DAILY and YEARLY variations in temperature exceeding 10 times the observed "mean" warming. Even the PRIMARY projections of temperature increase didn't survive a decade.

If you are trying to argue that the world's glaciers are not melting at increasing rates not seen in historical times, I'm afraid you are being willfully ignorant. I've studied marine invertebrates for many years, pal. The evidence is clear that the rate of die offs we are seeing today is unprecedented, and has clear human components (acidification and pollution).

Give me a testable hypothesis on the Global Mean Temperature for 2050.. One that doesn't vary by 5 times the average projection.

We weren't taking about testable hypotheses. We were discussing testable predictions. So stop changing the subject.

Have you seen a single extreme weather event attributed to the 0.5deg of warming in your lifetime? You're not hallucinating like the GoldiRocks are you?

Too many COULDs MIGHTs and POSSIBLIES to EVER be a "testable hypothesis".. That step never uses any of those words.

Increased flood risk linked to global warming Nature News

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7334/full/nature09763.html

Drought under global warming a review - Dai - 2010 - Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Climate Change - Wiley Online Library

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n7/full/nclimate1452.html

Well, that 1st study Iis a good example of finding outcomes to fit your hypothesis. Its about trying to pin the floods in SW england in early 2000s to the warming incurred since about 1900. And each and every one of the 2300 weather years generated by their models NEVER HAPPENED. They are the ass end of a chain of cobbled simulators, that were initialized in APRIL and asked to run til NOVEMBER of that year. No where in the paper is a reality check against the one TRUE April to Nov weather of 2000. It is OK to run simulations of unknown accuracy and compare changes in initial values, but it is NOT OK to offer output differences as proof of causation unless they accurately predict actual events. They did not claim to find the floods of 2000 in SW England intheir results. They merely rolled the dice and made comments about the general probabilities of such events. If their claims had basis in the Real World ,,,,,,,, you would see evidence in the general rainfall recods for that region. THERE ARE NO SUCH TRENDS in the actual records. They are free to MAKE that claim, but this study does not prove it.

In my best Clint Eastwood,, You feeling lucky today punk.? You think you know the odds? Well make my day and make those claims.....

Assuming that you plan to publish a refutation of that paper (you are planning to publish your conclusion, right?), let's move on to the others, shall we? No comments on those?

BTW O-Man -- I would never attempt to "refute" the paper -- even with the proper investments in understanding their methods.. Because one can plainly see that the thousands of variables and assumptions made in those simulations are NOT revealed. It's not replicatable science. It's proprietary software and 2300 runs of 6 month long weather forecasts based on ASSUMPTIONS of climate change that are also not clear.. Ending up in "stream and rivers flooding" simulations where they don't specifically discuss the "increased" flooding in terms of actual numbers or relate the results to naturally observed and measured instances of flooding.

It's merely an interesting effort in statistical modeling. WITH a socio-political goal to confirm the IMMEDIATE dangers of AGW and frighten people.. And resuscitate the movement.

 

[orogenicman]

Rising sea levels, increase in extreme weather, coral die offs, increase in oceanic dead zones, melting glaciers and permafrost, tropical diseases moving into more temperate zones, alteration of climate zones, etc., etc., etc.

Not at allit hasnt O-man. Glaciers have been melting for 1000s of years. Coral reefs die from a myriad of causes in local enviros that have DAILY and YEARLY variations in temperature exceeding 10 times the observed "mean" warming. Even the PRIMARY projections of temperature increase didn't survive a decade.

If you are trying to argue that the world's glaciers are not melting at increasing rates not seen in historical times, I'm afraid you are being willfully ignorant. I've studied marine invertebrates for many years, pal. The evidence is clear that the rate of die offs we are seeing today is unprecedented, and has clear human components (acidification and pollution).

Give me a testable hypothesis on the Global Mean Temperature for 2050.. One that doesn't vary by 5 times the average projection.

We weren't taking about testable hypotheses. We were discussing testable predictions. So stop changing the subject.

Have you seen a single extreme weather event attributed to the 0.5deg of warming in your lifetime? You're not hallucinating like the GoldiRocks are you?

Too many COULDs MIGHTs and POSSIBLIES to EVER be a "testable hypothesis".. That step never uses any of those words.

Increased flood risk linked to global warming Nature News

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7334/full/nature09763.html

Drought under global warming a review - Dai - 2010 - Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Climate Change - Wiley Online Library

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n7/full/nclimate1452.html

Well, that 1st study Iis a good example of finding outcomes to fit your hypothesis. Its about trying to pin the floods in SW england in early 2000s to the warming incurred since about 1900. And each and every one of the 2300 weather years generated by their models NEVER HAPPENED. They are the ass end of a chain of cobbled simulators, that were initialized in APRIL and asked to run til NOVEMBER of that year. No where in the paper is a reality check against the one TRUE April to Nov weather of 2000. It is OK to run simulations of unknown accuracy and compare changes in initial values, but it is NOT OK to offer output differences as proof of causation unless they accurately predict actual events. They did not claim to find the floods of 2000 in SW England intheir results. They merely rolled the dice and made comments about the general probabilities of such events. If their claims had basis in the Real World ,,,,,,,, you would see evidence in the general rainfall recods for that region. THERE ARE NO SUCH TRENDS in the actual records. They are free to MAKE that claim, but this study does not prove it.

In my best Clint Eastwood,, You feeling lucky today punk.? You think you know the odds? Well make my day and make those claims.....

Assuming that you plan to publish a refutation of that paper (you are planning to publish your conclusion, right?), let's move on to the others, shall we? No comments on those?

Would LOVE to take a look at the others. Hopefully more robust INDICTMENTS of actual damage happening TODAY. I'm merely waiting for YOUR analysis of what was offered in that first paper.

If you think that simulator jockeys with a noble cause have PROVED that the Nov 2000 SW English floods were enhanced by a mere 0.5degC in warming --- tell me how this paper can be so vague about the actual tuning and assumptions of the simulations -- yet still be proof of anything.

It's interesting from the standpoint of tools they cobbled together. But that's about it..

Fine. The "1st paper" wasn't a paper. It was an article in Nature describing the work done in THREE papers authored by fifteen scientists, in total. I take it you didn't even bother to read them or the original article.

Those three papers "conclude that climate warming is already causing extreme weather events that affect the lives of millions. The research directly links rising greenhouse-gas levels with the growing intensity of rain and snow in the Northern Hemisphere, and the increased risk of flooding in the United Kingdom.

Here are the referenced papers, if you care to actually review them:

1. Article
2. Article
3. Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |

I eagerly await you posting a REAL REVIEW, not something you made up out of whole cloth. Then you can move on to reviewing the others.

 

[orogenicman]

Rising sea levels, increase in extreme weather, coral die offs, increase in oceanic dead zones, melting glaciers and permafrost, tropical diseases moving into more temperate zones, alteration of climate zones, etc., etc., etc.

Not at allit hasnt O-man. Glaciers have been melting for 1000s of years. Coral reefs die from a myriad of causes in local enviros that have DAILY and YEARLY variations in temperature exceeding 10 times the observed "mean" warming. Even the PRIMARY projections of temperature increase didn't survive a decade.

If you are trying to argue that the world's glaciers are not melting at increasing rates not seen in historical times, I'm afraid you are being willfully ignorant. I've studied marine invertebrates for many years, pal. The evidence is clear that the rate of die offs we are seeing today is unprecedented, and has clear human components (acidification and pollution).

Give me a testable hypothesis on the Global Mean Temperature for 2050.. One that doesn't vary by 5 times the average projection.

We weren't taking about testable hypotheses. We were discussing testable predictions. So stop changing the subject.

Have you seen a single extreme weather event attributed to the 0.5deg of warming in your lifetime? You're not hallucinating like the GoldiRocks are you?

Too many COULDs MIGHTs and POSSIBLIES to EVER be a "testable hypothesis".. That step never uses any of those words.

Increased flood risk linked to global warming Nature News

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7334/full/nature09763.html

Drought under global warming a review - Dai - 2010 - Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Climate Change - Wiley Online Library

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n7/full/nclimate1452.html

Well, that 1st study Iis a good example of finding outcomes to fit your hypothesis. Its about trying to pin the floods in SW england in early 2000s to the warming incurred since about 1900. And each and every one of the 2300 weather years generated by their models NEVER HAPPENED. They are the ass end of a chain of cobbled simulators, that were initialized in APRIL and asked to run til NOVEMBER of that year. No where in the paper is a reality check against the one TRUE April to Nov weather of 2000. It is OK to run simulations of unknown accuracy and compare changes in initial values, but it is NOT OK to offer output differences as proof of causation unless they accurately predict actual events. They did not claim to find the floods of 2000 in SW England intheir results. They merely rolled the dice and made comments about the general probabilities of such events. If their claims had basis in the Real World ,,,,,,,, you would see evidence in the general rainfall recods for that region. THERE ARE NO SUCH TRENDS in the actual records. They are free to MAKE that claim, but this study does not prove it.

In my best Clint Eastwood,, You feeling lucky today punk.? You think you know the odds? Well make my day and make those claims.....

Assuming that you plan to publish a refutation of that paper (you are planning to publish your conclusion, right?), let's move on to the others, shall we? No comments on those?

BTW O-Man -- I would never attempt to "refute" the paper ...

Of course you wouldn't. As I've shown in my previous post, it is clear that you haven't even read the paper, or the three research papers on which it is based.

 

[flacaltenn]

Not at allit hasnt O-man. Glaciers have been melting for 1000s of years. Coral reefs die from a myriad of causes in local enviros that have DAILY and YEARLY variations in temperature exceeding 10 times the observed "mean" warming. Even the PRIMARY projections of temperature increase didn't survive a decade.

If you are trying to argue that the world's glaciers are not melting at increasing rates not seen in historical times, I'm afraid you are being willfully ignorant. I've studied marine invertebrates for many years, pal. The evidence is clear that the rate of die offs we are seeing today is unprecedented, and has clear human components (acidification and pollution).

Give me a testable hypothesis on the Global Mean Temperature for 2050.. One that doesn't vary by 5 times the average projection.

We weren't taking about testable hypotheses. We were discussing testable predictions. So stop changing the subject.

Have you seen a single extreme weather event attributed to the 0.5deg of warming in your lifetime? You're not hallucinating like the GoldiRocks are you?

Too many COULDs MIGHTs and POSSIBLIES to EVER be a "testable hypothesis".. That step never uses any of those words.

Increased flood risk linked to global warming Nature News

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7334/full/nature09763.html

Drought under global warming a review - Dai - 2010 - Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Climate Change - Wiley Online Library

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n7/full/nclimate1452.html

Well, that 1st study Iis a good example of finding outcomes to fit your hypothesis. Its about trying to pin the floods in SW england in early 2000s to the warming incurred since about 1900. And each and every one of the 2300 weather years generated by their models NEVER HAPPENED. They are the ass end of a chain of cobbled simulators, that were initialized in APRIL and asked to run til NOVEMBER of that year. No where in the paper is a reality check against the one TRUE April to Nov weather of 2000. It is OK to run simulations of unknown accuracy and compare changes in initial values, but it is NOT OK to offer output differences as proof of causation unless they accurately predict actual events. They did not claim to find the floods of 2000 in SW England intheir results. They merely rolled the dice and made comments about the general probabilities of such events. If their claims had basis in the Real World ,,,,,,,, you would see evidence in the general rainfall recods for that region. THERE ARE NO SUCH TRENDS in the actual records. They are free to MAKE that claim, but this study does not prove it.

In my best Clint Eastwood,, You feeling lucky today punk.? You think you know the odds? Well make my day and make those claims.....

Assuming that you plan to publish a refutation of that paper (you are planning to publish your conclusion, right?), let's move on to the others, shall we? No comments on those?

Would LOVE to take a look at the others. Hopefully more robust INDICTMENTS of actual damage happening TODAY. I'm merely waiting for YOUR analysis of what was offered in that first paper.

If you think that simulator jockeys with a noble cause have PROVED that the Nov 2000 SW English floods were enhanced by a mere 0.5degC in warming --- tell me how this paper can be so vague about the actual tuning and assumptions of the simulations -- yet still be proof of anything.

It's interesting from the standpoint of tools they cobbled together. But that's about it..

Fine. The "1st paper" wasn't a paper. It was an article in Nature describing the work done in THREE papers authored by fifteen scientists, in total. I take it you didn't even bother to read them or the original article.

Those three papers "conclude that climate warming is already causing extreme weather events that affect the lives of millions. The research directly links rising greenhouse-gas levels with the growing intensity of rain and snow in the Northern Hemisphere, and the increased risk of flooding in the United Kingdom.

Here are the referenced papers, if you care to actually review them:

1. Article
2. Article
3. Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |

I eagerly await you posting a REAL REVIEW, not something you made up out of whole cloth. Then you can move on to reviewing the others.

Wrongo -- I never make comments like those based on an article interpreting the work.. I traced it back to the ACTUAL paper trying to allege that the 2000 SW Eng floods were somehow enhanced by a 0.5deg change in GLOBAL AVG TEMPERATURE..

 

[flacaltenn]

Not at allit hasnt O-man. Glaciers have been melting for 1000s of years. Coral reefs die from a myriad of causes in local enviros that have DAILY and YEARLY variations in temperature exceeding 10 times the observed "mean" warming. Even the PRIMARY projections of temperature increase didn't survive a decade.

If you are trying to argue that the world's glaciers are not melting at increasing rates not seen in historical times, I'm afraid you are being willfully ignorant. I've studied marine invertebrates for many years, pal. The evidence is clear that the rate of die offs we are seeing today is unprecedented, and has clear human components (acidification and pollution).

Give me a testable hypothesis on the Global Mean Temperature for 2050.. One that doesn't vary by 5 times the average projection.

We weren't taking about testable hypotheses. We were discussing testable predictions. So stop changing the subject.

Have you seen a single extreme weather event attributed to the 0.5deg of warming in your lifetime? You're not hallucinating like the GoldiRocks are you?

Too many COULDs MIGHTs and POSSIBLIES to EVER be a "testable hypothesis".. That step never uses any of those words.

Increased flood risk linked to global warming Nature News

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7334/full/nature09763.html

Drought under global warming a review - Dai - 2010 - Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Climate Change - Wiley Online Library

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n7/full/nclimate1452.html

Well, that 1st study Iis a good example of finding outcomes to fit your hypothesis. Its about trying to pin the floods in SW england in early 2000s to the warming incurred since about 1900. And each and every one of the 2300 weather years generated by their models NEVER HAPPENED. They are the ass end of a chain of cobbled simulators, that were initialized in APRIL and asked to run til NOVEMBER of that year. No where in the paper is a reality check against the one TRUE April to Nov weather of 2000. It is OK to run simulations of unknown accuracy and compare changes in initial values, but it is NOT OK to offer output differences as proof of causation unless they accurately predict actual events. They did not claim to find the floods of 2000 in SW England intheir results. They merely rolled the dice and made comments about the general probabilities of such events. If their claims had basis in the Real World ,,,,,,,, you would see evidence in the general rainfall recods for that region. THERE ARE NO SUCH TRENDS in the actual records. They are free to MAKE that claim, but this study does not prove it.

In my best Clint Eastwood,, You feeling lucky today punk.? You think you know the odds? Well make my day and make those claims.....

Assuming that you plan to publish a refutation of that paper (you are planning to publish your conclusion, right?), let's move on to the others, shall we? No comments on those?

BTW O-Man -- I would never attempt to "refute" the paper ...

Of course you wouldn't. As I've shown in my previous post, it is clear that you haven't even read the paper, or the three research papers on which it is based.

As is the case in these studies that you APPARENTLY accepting as scientific PROOF of actual current weather being influenced by recent global warming --- you've proved NOTHING about my vetting of the topic or what effort I've put into understanding it.

STILL WAITING for interpretation of this 1st AGW "claim" in your own words and the conclusions that can be drawn from it. Or are you a spectator and fanboy rather than a player?

You think those results speak to GLOBAL climate effects?
You think there might be similar projections for DROUGHT based on minor temperature change?
If the principal variable is a homogenized atmospheric temperature change of a fraction of degree, that predictions indicating both flood and drought must be equally valid?

((and moreso -- do you believe a collection of those works with conflicting hypotheses is a TESTABLE proposition)? Yes those predictions ARE the equivalent of making a hypothesis -- in spite of your objections))..

Less appeal to authority and more skin in the game --- MIGHT give your brain a better workout...

 

[jc456]

funny how your article mentions viruses and vaccinations. That begs the question, if you get vaccinated and I don't, why are you scared of me?