The next time some idiot tells you, "But the real science says....."

[westwall]

Ahhh, good little troll. I see all you can muster are childish responses.

Attacking the person ... great logical step there ...

You really did post that ... and like Mann ... you refuse to withdraw it ... I respect your intelligence, just too stubborn for a man of your great age ...

Pot, meet kettle. You get what you give. If you want to talk science I am happy to do so, but if you resort to snarkiness expect the same back.

 

[ReinyDays]

Pot, meet kettle. You get what you give. If you want to talk science I am happy to do so, but if you resort to snarkiness expect the same back.

Snarky is fun ... ad hominem admits defeat ... there's no talking science if you insist it's not ...

 

[westwall]

Pot, meet kettle. You get what you give. If you want to talk science I am happy to do so, but if you resort to snarkiness expect the same back.

Snarky is fun ... ad hominem admits defeat ... there's no talking science if you insist it's not ...

I presented science, you presented computer derived fiction.

 

[ReinyDays]

I presented science, you presented computer derived fiction.

Let's review again:

... Climatology is a pseudo science, so the scientific method no longer applies. That is reserved for ACTUAL science.

It's this kind of nonsense that makes me doubt you're a geologist ... why would any university give you a degree if this is what you think is science ...

Let's not forget your scientific response:

Ahhh, good little troll. I see all you can muster are childish responses.

Oh yeah ... PhD in science ... how could I not see that ...

Please explain "fiction" ... I'll give you a clue: "The study was based on gridded air temperature data in a 7 × 11 km horizontal resolution for current and future climate conditions." ... you're a geologist, you should know this ...

 

[westwall]

I presented science, you presented computer derived fiction.

Let's review again:

... Climatology is a pseudo science, so the scientific method no longer applies. That is reserved for ACTUAL science.

It's this kind of nonsense that makes me doubt you're a geologist ... why would any university give you a degree if this is what you think is science ...

Let's not forget your scientific response:

Ahhh, good little troll. I see all you can muster are childish responses.

Oh yeah ... PhD in science ... how could I not see that ...

Please explain "fiction" ... I'll give you a clue: "The study was based on gridded air temperature data in a 7 × 11 km horizontal resolution for current and future climate conditions." ... you're a geologist, you should know this ...

Let's start simple for you. Is computer modeling results data?

 

[ReinyDays]

Please explain "fiction" ... I'll give you a clue: "The study was based on gridded air temperature data in a 7 × 11 km horizontal resolution for current and future climate conditions." ... you're a geologist, you should know this ...

Let's start simple for you. Is computer modeling results data?

Ah ... so you don't know the first thing about computational fluid dynamics ... ya know, that was a softball question I asked you ... "7 × 11 km horizontal resolution" ... you don't have a clue what that means ... do you? ... much in science has changed since you retired ...

Humans model the climate, and for now we're using SB ... no known reason why this shouldn't work ... an assumption here and there and we can run our iterations ... computers can only produce the results they're programmed to produce ... absolutely nothing more ... that was true for the PDP/11 you used, that's true for the Vax Frontier that's being installed at Oakridge ...

if ( $T> 17 ) {echo "We're all gonna die";}
else {echo "We're still all gonna die";}

Simple ...

 

[westwall]

Please explain "fiction" ... I'll give you a clue: "The study was based on gridded air temperature data in a 7 × 11 km horizontal resolution for current and future climate conditions." ... you're a geologist, you should know this ...

Let's start simple for you. Is computer modeling results data?

Ah ... so you don't know the first thing about computational fluid dynamics ... ya know, that was a softball question I asked you ... "7 × 11 km horizontal resolution" ... you don't have a clue what that means ... do you? ... much in science has changed since you retired ...

Humans model the climate, and for now we're using SB ... no known reason why this shouldn't work ... an assumption here and there and we can run our iterations ... computers can only produce the results they're programmed to produce ... absolutely nothing more ... that was true for the PDP/11 you used, that's true for the Vax Frontier that's being installed at Oakridge ...

if ( $T> 17 ) {echo "We're all gonna die";}
else {echo "We're still all gonna die";}

Simple ...

I know quite a bit about CFD models. Now, answer the question, are the results of computer models, data?

 

[ReinyDays]

I know quite a bit about CFD models. Now, answer the question, are the results of computer models, data?

No you don't ... not one thing have you posted here would make me believe otherwise ... "7 × 11 km horizontal resolution" ... tell what you think that means ... I'd like to know where to start explaining these things to you ...

 

[westwall]

I know quite a bit about CFD models. Now, answer the question, are the results of computer models, data?

No you don't ... not one thing have you posted here would make me believe otherwise ... "7 × 11 km horizontal resolution" ... tell what you think that means ... I'd like to know where to start explaining these things to you ...

It's a measure of remote sensing spatial resolution. I helped design these things. Silly boi. Now, answer my question.

 

[ABikerSailor]

If I need any shit out of you, I'll squeeze your head.

If I need any lip from you, I'll just wipe my zipper.

 

[Oddball]

wholesale violations of the scientific method.

I wonder what a climate scientist would say to you if you told them they were doing climate science wrong.

Frankly, I don't care. If they violate the scientific method they are nothing more than charlatans. Dr. Feynman says it far better than I ever could.... Listen carefully to what he says here. Especially the end.

IMO, Feynman was way brighter than Hawking....But who does everyone know about?

 

[Oddball]

This is what we get when "science" gets into the business of working rearward from the result that they want to get.

That is scientific method ... state your hypothesis which is what you want to find ... then do an experiment to demonstrate what you want to find ... so in your conclusions you can say what you want is what you found ... I'm not saying this is right or wrong, just that this is how it is ... and it's better than having to get Church approval ...

Not quite...What you do is look at the phenomenon and eliminate what didn't make it happen...What remains are theories that you seek to find evidence for....We know this as "falsification".

You don't look at the result, then account for all the possibilities that could make it happen, while ignoring all that doesn't fit your pre-arrived upon conclusion, and/or the agendas of those funding your research....That's how all too much "science" is being done these days.

View attachment 384048

The scientific method has not changed. It is hard to experiment on the globe since we only have one subject and no control.

Correct, the scientific method has not changed. But climatologists ignore it because it interferes with their grant proposals.

Should this be in the Conspiracy room or do you have some back up?

Sure look up Trenberth declaring repeatability of his experiments isn't necessary.

Climate Scientist Kevin Trenberth, Distinguished Senior Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research has insisted that Climate Science does follow the scientific method.

This Kevin Trenberth?

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

 

[ReinyDays]

It's a measure of remote sensing spatial resolution. I helped design these things. Silly boi. Now, answer my question.

We're not "remote sensing" into the future ... if we could, we wouldn't be building computer simulations ... those are just buzz words that don't mean anything in this context ...

So ... old man ... allow me to explain ... we take a volume and divide it up into equal "unit volumes" ... for each unit volume, we calculate the work done on it by the surrounding unit volumes over our unit time interval ... for each and every unit volume ... this is our first iteration ...using these results, we then do the same calculations for our second iteration ... and keep going for however many iterations we need ... get that, the output of one iteration is the input of the next iteration ...

For our atmosphere, much is still unknown, much we're frantically trying to learn to measure ... until we find these values, we have to assume ... so we'll tweak these assumed values and run the whole simulation again ... tweak and run again ... how ever many times needed ... in the end, we're left many results and we typically present these results as a distribution curve ... the 2ºC temperature increase in the next 100 years is the most likely result, no one's saying it will be such, only this is the most likely results if climate forcing reaches 4.5 W/m^2 by 2120 ... if your familiar with distribution curves, then you know marginal results are extremely unlikely, there exist a tiny chance temperatures could go up 3ºC and equal chances it could be 1ºC ...

There's a balance between the size of our unit volume (and unit time interval) and how long we can wait for results (or how much supercomputer time we can afford) ... the smaller our unit volume, the more accurate our results, but the longer it takes to resolve ... why bother running a computer five days to find the five day forecast? ...

I have no idea where you get "spatial resolution" from 7 km x 11 km ... my math gives me 77 SQUARE km ... that's an area, not a volume ... the correct answer is we use the full height of the atmosphere, typically capped at 180 mb (roughly 10 km at Germany's latitude) ... 770 km^3 is a rather large unit volume ... the global climate model results from a few years ago used 7.5º x 7.5º x full height which is an enormous unit volume ... just plunging accuracy into pretty much useless results ... plus, at full height, these models completely ignore the convective transfer of energy, any beginning student of meteorology will tell you that's so flawed as to make the model results completely bogus ... at least with today's computers ...

With this in mind, the answer to your question is that these results are statistical data ... and should be treated with care and all the general reservations any scientist has woth anything statistical ... it's a great and useful tool, but the data is profoundly non-empirical ... we still have to wait 100 years before we'll know what the actual temperature will be then ... "lies, damned lies and statistics" -- Benjamin Disraeli ...

You'll never admit an uneducated construction laborer knows a little more than your doctorhood about weather ... I can't believe you missed that about convection ... there's nothing left for you but personal attacks on me ... go for it ... every one counts as a victory for me ...

Read James Hansen's textbook on Climatology ... you can be useful by explaining how he's using the stress tensor in his derivations ... I assume a geologist lives breaths and functions on this type of math ... it's above my pay grade ...

 

[ReinyDays]

Mark Landsea at NHC was kicked off the IPCC ... he pointed out we don't have near enough empirical data to draw any kind of conclusions about future climate ... keep that in mind ... one of the world's foremost experts in hurricanes wasn't given a seat at that table ... sad, just sad ...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

This is what we get when "science" gets into the business of working rearward from the result that they want to get.

That is scientific method ... state your hypothesis which is what you want to find ... then do an experiment to demonstrate what you want to find ... so in your conclusions you can say what you want is what you found ... I'm not saying this is right or wrong, just that this is how it is ... and it's better than having to get Church approval ...

Not quite...What you do is look at the phenomenon and eliminate what didn't make it happen...What remains are theories that you seek to find evidence for....We know this as "falsification".

You don't look at the result, then account for all the possibilities that could make it happen, while ignoring all that doesn't fit your pre-arrived upon conclusion, and/or the agendas of those funding your research....That's how all too much "science" is being done these days.

View attachment 384048

The scientific method has not changed. It is hard to experiment on the globe since we only have one subject and no control.

What a joke!

 

[alang1216]

This is what we get when "science" gets into the business of working rearward from the result that they want to get.

That is scientific method ... state your hypothesis which is what you want to find ... then do an experiment to demonstrate what you want to find ... so in your conclusions you can say what you want is what you found ... I'm not saying this is right or wrong, just that this is how it is ... and it's better than having to get Church approval ...

Not quite...What you do is look at the phenomenon and eliminate what didn't make it happen...What remains are theories that you seek to find evidence for....We know this as "falsification".

You don't look at the result, then account for all the possibilities that could make it happen, while ignoring all that doesn't fit your pre-arrived upon conclusion, and/or the agendas of those funding your research....That's how all too much "science" is being done these days.

View attachment 384048

The scientific method has not changed. It is hard to experiment on the globe since we only have one subject and no control.

Correct, the scientific method has not changed. But climatologists ignore it because it interferes with their grant proposals.

Should this be in the Conspiracy room or do you have some back up?

Sure look up Trenberth declaring repeatability of his experiments isn't necessary.

Climate Scientist Kevin Trenberth, Distinguished Senior Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research has insisted that Climate Science does follow the scientific method.

This Kevin Trenberth?

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

I guess he is saying science doesn't have all the answers and needs to continue to study climate. Sounds like just what you'd want an objective scientist to admit.

 

[ReinyDays]

I guess he is saying science doesn't have all the answers and needs to continue to study climate. Sounds like just what you'd want an objective scientist to admit.

Yeah, we could falseify climate change today and no one would lose their jobs ...

 

[Oddball]

This is what we get when "science" gets into the business of working rearward from the result that they want to get.

That is scientific method ... state your hypothesis which is what you want to find ... then do an experiment to demonstrate what you want to find ... so in your conclusions you can say what you want is what you found ... I'm not saying this is right or wrong, just that this is how it is ... and it's better than having to get Church approval ...

Not quite...What you do is look at the phenomenon and eliminate what didn't make it happen...What remains are theories that you seek to find evidence for....We know this as "falsification".

You don't look at the result, then account for all the possibilities that could make it happen, while ignoring all that doesn't fit your pre-arrived upon conclusion, and/or the agendas of those funding your research....That's how all too much "science" is being done these days.

View attachment 384048

The scientific method has not changed. It is hard to experiment on the globe since we only have one subject and no control.

Correct, the scientific method has not changed. But climatologists ignore it because it interferes with their grant proposals.

Should this be in the Conspiracy room or do you have some back up?

Sure look up Trenberth declaring repeatability of his experiments isn't necessary.

Climate Scientist Kevin Trenberth, Distinguished Senior Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research has insisted that Climate Science does follow the scientific method.

This Kevin Trenberth?

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

I guess he is saying science doesn't have all the answers and needs to continue to study climate. Sounds like just what you'd want an objective scientist to admit.

What he's saying is that their models are wrong....Not-so-coincidentally, the nutty fakery which claimed that the "oceans ate Goebbels warming" came out shortly after this.....Which goes to prove my assertion earlier in the thread.

If your models are wrong, change them until they're not.

 

[alang1216]

If your models are wrong, change them until they're not.

I'd bet Kevin Trenberth would completely agree.

 

[westwall]

wholesale violations of the scientific method.

I wonder what a climate scientist would say to you if you told them they were doing climate science wrong.

Frankly, I don't care. If they violate the scientific method they are nothing more than charlatans. Dr. Feynman says it far better than I ever could.... Listen carefully to what he says here. Especially the end.

IMO, Feynman was way brighter than Hawking....But who does everyone know about?

I agree with you. Feynman got cancelled when he destroyed the official NASA narrative on national TV. Think of it, an old scientist, not writing any more papers

wholesale violations of the scientific method.

I wonder what a climate scientist would say to you if you told them they were doing climate science wrong.

Frankly, I don't care. If they violate the scientific method they are nothing more than charlatans. Dr. Feynman says it far better than I ever could.... Listen carefully to what he says here. Especially the end.

IMO, Feynman was way brighter than Hawking....But who does everyone know about?

Yes, he really was. He isn't so well known now because he Demolished the official NASA tall tale about why the Challenger catastrophe occurred. On national TV. Imagine that, an old scientist, long removed from active research, showing up the army of experts trotted out to say "no, the O rings are fine in that temperature range" then Feynman drops an O ring into a glass of cold water, and removes it, then snaps it in half. Something the experts said couldn't happen.

That's why you never hear of him, he showed up the supposed experts. People like confounding have been brainwashed into thinking if you aren't an expert on their particular subject you aren't qualified to speak on it. Very reminiscent of High priests being the word of God in my mind.