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

[westwall]

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."

Yup.

 

[westwall]

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 ...

Really, You have no idea where you get "SPATIAL RESOLUTION" from a 7km X 11km frame? You describe a 3D model, but then all of a sudden, it turns into a 2D?

That the best you can do?

Really?

 

[westwall]

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

I'd bet Kevin Trenberth would completely agree.

No, now trenberth just alters that actual data. In thirty years they have never made a model that was even close to accurate, so they have simply given up and now rely on falsification.

 

[westwall]

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.

Yeah, computer models AREN'T data. So either come up with a model that is actually useful, or go back to the hard work of empirical research. But, that's the problem... Empirical work is hard, oftimes boring as hell, and requires a long time between publicating your work. Computer model "studies" allow you to publish every month. You aren't actually producing ANYTHING of value, but you can spew all sorts of crap out in a hurry. That's how they get rich off of grants.

 

[westwall]

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 ...

Well, as climate change is very real you can't falsify it. However, it has been shown that mankind is not a driver of the climate, so falsification is the last resort to keep the climate change grant gravy train going, so yes, as soon as it becomes widely known that the AGW component of climate change has been falsified, a whole bunch of shit "scientists" will indeed lose their jobs. And hopefully they will have to return the cash they have been stealing from the taxpayers as well.

 

[Confounding]

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.

You're suggesting that scientists all over the planet are frauds that aren't doing science properly. You do not know more about the climate than the vast amount of climate scientists all over the world that say AGW is happening.

 

[alang1216]

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

I'd bet Kevin Trenberth would completely agree.

No, now trenberth just alters that actual data. In thirty years they have never made a model that was even close to accurate, so they have simply given up and now rely on falsification.

Take off your tin-foil hat and check out:
Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right

 

[alang1216]

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 ...

Well, as climate change is very real you can't falsify it. However, it has been shown that mankind is not a driver of the climate, so falsification is the last resort to keep the climate change grant gravy train going, so yes, as soon as it becomes widely known that the AGW component of climate change has been falsified, a whole bunch of shit "scientists" will indeed lose their jobs. And hopefully they will have to return the cash they have been stealing from the taxpayers as well.

So you believe in climate change but doubt that man is behind it? Why does it matter?

 

[westwall]

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.

You're suggesting that scientists all over the planet are frauds that aren't doing science properly. You do not know more about the climate than the vast amount of climate scientists all over the world that say AGW is happening.

You are partially correct. I don't know MORE than a climatologist, but I DO know as MUCH as they do. And no, not all bad scientists are frauds. Some are just bad at what they do. Fraud becomes an issue when they KNOWINGLY falsify empirical data to conform to their failed models. THAT is scientific, and very real, fraud.

 

[westwall]

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

I'd bet Kevin Trenberth would completely agree.

No, now trenberth just alters that actual data. In thirty years they have never made a model that was even close to accurate, so they have simply given up and now rely on falsification.

Take off your tin-foil hat and check out:
Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right

Notice how they don't link to the actual "study". They give you an opinion. And, also note what they say here...

"The authors found no evidence that the climate models evaluated either systematically overestimated or underestimated warming over the period of their projections."



Why is that sentence important?

And it doesn't take a tin hat to figure it out.






And here are papers that show the climate models to be worthless.


"The iconoclast is Dr. Mototaka Nakamura. In June he put out a small book in Japanese on “the sorry state of climate science”. It’s titled Confessions of a climate scientist: the global warming hypothesis is an unproven hypothesis, and he is very much qualified to take a stand. From 1990 to 2014 he worked on cloud dynamics and forces mixing atmospheric and ocean flows on medium to planetary scales. His bases were MIT (for a Doctor of Science in meteorology), Georgia Institute of Technology, Goddard Space Flight Centre, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Duke and Hawaii Universities and the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology. He’s published about 20 climate papers on fluid dynamics.https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2019/09/a-climate-modeller-spills-the-beans/#_edn1"

A Climate Modeller Spills the Beans – Quadrant Online

quadrant.org.au

Secular trends in daily precipitation characteristics: greenhouse gas simulation with a coupled AOGCM - Climate Dynamics

Secular trends of daily precipitation characteristics are considered in the transient climate change experiment with a coupled atmosphere–ocean general circulation model ECHAM4/OPYC3 for 1900–2099. The climate forcing is due to increasing concentrations of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere...

link.springer.com

https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/CanadianClimateModel2016.pdf

 

[westwall]

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 ...

Well, as climate change is very real you can't falsify it. However, it has been shown that mankind is not a driver of the climate, so falsification is the last resort to keep the climate change grant gravy train going, so yes, as soon as it becomes widely known that the AGW component of climate change has been falsified, a whole bunch of shit "scientists" will indeed lose their jobs. And hopefully they will have to return the cash they have been stealing from the taxpayers as well.

So you believe in climate change but doubt that man is behind it? Why does it matter?

Because politicians want to use false science to control their citizenry. That's why.

 

[ReinyDays]

Well, as climate change is very real you can't falsify it. However, it has been shown that mankind is not a driver of the climate, so falsification is the last resort to keep the climate change grant gravy train going, so yes, as soon as it becomes widely known that the AGW component of climate change has been falsified, a whole bunch of shit "scientists" will indeed lose their jobs. And hopefully they will have to return the cash they have been stealing from the taxpayers as well.

Thank you for confining your comments to the carbon dioxide component of AGW conjecture ... because we agree here ...

I think you're confusing money paid to people for reading a script for the commercial media ... (Mann got filthy rich spewing his lies) ... with the money spent to support folks out on the ice pack, with thermometers, gathering empirical data ... that's expensive and very little of it has been done ... it really sucks living at the South Pole ...

Basic research monies will continue ... we're still going to send people out into the field (or ocean) to measure ... the funding will start shifting back to more weather related research ... but the climate research is just as important to our understanding of all things atmospheric ... the rank-and-file climatologists won't lose their jobs in any great mass ...

Could you please explain how man-made carbon dioxide warming the Earth is falsified? ... I agree the effect is trivial, but that's different from falsification ... and of course claims of catastrophe are falsified out-of-hand ... one man with one shovel in a year can fully protect the City of Houston against all sea level rise expected over the next 300 50 years ... scary thought isn't it ...

Oops .. nose is starting to tingle ... best not discuss sea level rise any further ...

 

[westwall]

Well, as climate change is very real you can't falsify it. However, it has been shown that mankind is not a driver of the climate, so falsification is the last resort to keep the climate change grant gravy train going, so yes, as soon as it becomes widely known that the AGW component of climate change has been falsified, a whole bunch of shit "scientists" will indeed lose their jobs. And hopefully they will have to return the cash they have been stealing from the taxpayers as well.

Thank you for confining your comments to the carbon dioxide component of AGW conjecture ... because we agree here ...

I think you're confusing money paid to people for reading a script for the commercial media ... (Mann got filthy rich spewing his lies) ... with the money spent to support folks out on the ice pack, with thermometers, gathering empirical data ... that's expensive and very little of it has been done ... it really sucks living at the South Pole ...

Basic research monies will continue ... we're still going to send people out into the field (or ocean) to measure ... the funding will start shifting back to more weather related research ... but the climate research is just as important to our understanding of all things atmospheric ... the rank-and-file climatologists won't lose their jobs in any great mass ...

Could you please explain how man-made carbon dioxide warming the Earth is falsified? ... I agree the effect is trivial, but that's different from falsification ... and of course claims of catastrophe are falsified out-of-hand ... one man with one shovel in a year can fully protect the City of Houston against all sea level rise expected over the next 300 50 years ... scary thought isn't it ...

Oops .. nose is starting to tingle ... best not discuss sea level rise any further ...

What warms the planet? Or more accurately what regulates the temperature of the planet? The oceans. The latent heat of the oceans built up by UV radiation penetrating the top 500 meters of the oceans over billions of years is what actually regulates the temperature of the planet. The AGW theory is after the UV has penetrated the atmosphere the back radiation, in the form of Long Wave IR, is split with 50% being redirected back to the ground.

Fine, let us assume that that is true. What does the Long Wave IR do? It will certainly warm the rocks for a little while, but what does it do to water? The answer is nothing. Long Wave IR can't penetrate the skin of water so it can have no effect on the long term build up of heat the way UV radiation can. How do we know this? Go to the desert. Hot during the day, warmish during the evening. Frigidly cold during the night. Unless you are next to the ocean. If you are next to the ocean there is enough water vapor extending inland (for a few miles) to regulate the temperature at night so that it doesn't get too cold.

Water vapor is the dominant GHG in our atmosphere, by orders of magnitude, and it doesn't increase the temperature of the globe, it prevents the heat from escaping back into space. It acts as a blanket, but not an electric one.

 

[Confounding]

You are partially correct. I don't know MORE than a climatologist, but I DO know as MUCH as they do.

You know as much as active leading scientists? That's impressive from somebody who is admittedly 20 years retired. If you're right and they are wrong would that not mean you actually know more than they do?

 

[alang1216]

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 ...

Well, as climate change is very real you can't falsify it. However, it has been shown that mankind is not a driver of the climate, so falsification is the last resort to keep the climate change grant gravy train going, so yes, as soon as it becomes widely known that the AGW component of climate change has been falsified, a whole bunch of shit "scientists" will indeed lose their jobs. And hopefully they will have to return the cash they have been stealing from the taxpayers as well.

So you believe in climate change but doubt that man is behind it? Why does it matter?

Because politicians want to use false science to control their citizenry. That's why.

Put that tin-foil hat back on.

 

[alang1216]

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

I'd bet Kevin Trenberth would completely agree.

No, now trenberth just alters that actual data. In thirty years they have never made a model that was even close to accurate, so they have simply given up and now rely on falsification.

Take off your tin-foil hat and check out:
Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right

Notice how they don't link to the actual "study". They give you an opinion. And, also note what they say here...

"The authors found no evidence that the climate models evaluated either systematically overestimated or underestimated warming over the period of their projections."



Why is that sentence important?

And it doesn't take a tin hat to figure it out.






And here are papers that show the climate models to be worthless.


"The iconoclast is Dr. Mototaka Nakamura. In June he put out a small book in Japanese on “the sorry state of climate science”. It’s titled Confessions of a climate scientist: the global warming hypothesis is an unproven hypothesis, and he is very much qualified to take a stand. From 1990 to 2014 he worked on cloud dynamics and forces mixing atmospheric and ocean flows on medium to planetary scales. His bases were MIT (for a Doctor of Science in meteorology), Georgia Institute of Technology, Goddard Space Flight Centre, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Duke and Hawaii Universities and the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology. He’s published about 20 climate papers on fluid dynamics.A Climate Modeller Spills the Beans – Quadrant Online"

A Climate Modeller Spills the Beans – Quadrant Online

quadrant.org.au

Secular trends in daily precipitation characteristics: greenhouse gas simulation with a coupled AOGCM - Climate Dynamics

Secular trends of daily precipitation characteristics are considered in the transient climate change experiment with a coupled atmosphere–ocean general circulation model ECHAM4/OPYC3 for 1900–2099. The climate forcing is due to increasing concentrations of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere...

link.springer.com

https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/CanadianClimateModel2016.pdf

"The authors found no evidence that the climate models evaluated either systematically overestimated or underestimated warming over the period of their projections."

The consensus among climate scientists is still that the earth is warming. Going against the grain can make you famous but few do.

 

[westwall]

You are partially correct. I don't know MORE than a climatologist, but I DO know as MUCH as they do.

You know as much as active leading scientists? That's impressive from somebody who is admittedly 20 years retired. If you're right and they are wrong would that not mean you actually know more than they do?

Yeah, I do. What they do isn't rocket science, and I am constantly reading papers, so yeah, I may not be publishing anymore, but I am current on the status of most science. I am a member of a lot of scientific organizations. Your claim is akin to just because a lawyer hasn't been in Court for a decade he is suddenly incapable of trying a case. That is a ludicrous position to take, but one that the climatology "faithful" take all of the time.

 

[westwall]

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

I'd bet Kevin Trenberth would completely agree.

No, now trenberth just alters that actual data. In thirty years they have never made a model that was even close to accurate, so they have simply given up and now rely on falsification.

Take off your tin-foil hat and check out:
Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right

Notice how they don't link to the actual "study". They give you an opinion. And, also note what they say here...

"The authors found no evidence that the climate models evaluated either systematically overestimated or underestimated warming over the period of their projections."



Why is that sentence important?

And it doesn't take a tin hat to figure it out.






And here are papers that show the climate models to be worthless.


"The iconoclast is Dr. Mototaka Nakamura. In June he put out a small book in Japanese on “the sorry state of climate science”. It’s titled Confessions of a climate scientist: the global warming hypothesis is an unproven hypothesis, and he is very much qualified to take a stand. From 1990 to 2014 he worked on cloud dynamics and forces mixing atmospheric and ocean flows on medium to planetary scales. His bases were MIT (for a Doctor of Science in meteorology), Georgia Institute of Technology, Goddard Space Flight Centre, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Duke and Hawaii Universities and the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology. He’s published about 20 climate papers on fluid dynamics.A Climate Modeller Spills the Beans – Quadrant Online"

A Climate Modeller Spills the Beans – Quadrant Online

quadrant.org.au

Secular trends in daily precipitation characteristics: greenhouse gas simulation with a coupled AOGCM - Climate Dynamics

Secular trends of daily precipitation characteristics are considered in the transient climate change experiment with a coupled atmosphere–ocean general circulation model ECHAM4/OPYC3 for 1900–2099. The climate forcing is due to increasing concentrations of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere...

link.springer.com

https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/CanadianClimateModel2016.pdf

"The authors found no evidence that the climate models evaluated either systematically overestimated or underestimated warming over the period of their projections."

The consensus among climate scientists is still that the earth is warming. Going against the grain can make you famous but few do.

No, the operative question is no matter what they did with their computer models there was ALWAYS warming. That is a computational bias written in to the code. No matter what numbers you plug in the result will always be warming. That makes the models invalid. See how science REALLY works.

Now, feel free to put your tin hat back on.

 

[Confounding]

Yeah, I do. What they do isn't rocket science, and I am constantly reading papers, so yeah, I may not be publishing anymore, but I am current on the status of most science. I am a member of a lot of scientific organizations. Your claim is akin to just because a lawyer hasn't been in Court for a decade he is suddenly incapable of trying a case. That is a ludicrous position to take, but one that the climatology "faithful" take all of the time.

You are wrong about this. I won't get through though.

 

[westwall]

Yeah, I do. What they do isn't rocket science, and I am constantly reading papers, so yeah, I may not be publishing anymore, but I am current on the status of most science. I am a member of a lot of scientific organizations. Your claim is akin to just because a lawyer hasn't been in Court for a decade he is suddenly incapable of trying a case. That is a ludicrous position to take, but one that the climatology "faithful" take all of the time.

You are wrong about this. I won't get through though.

How am I wrong. Produce a logical explanation on why I as a PhD scientist, with a long history of publication, is suddenly incapable of understanding a scientific paper.

GO!