@Plaz

Quote:

The science seems to get lost some where and emotional content takes over as the audience begins to filter information base on personal preference over hard fact.

Science is based on the model that the universe is observable and consistent. Science says when we observe X we can model predictions based on understanding X. Science then demands that we must test our models against outcomes and verify how accurate they are. When they aren't perfect science keeps observing, modeling, and retesting.

It's definitely not scientific to say we can observe X but can't model it and can never predict the outcome but the answer is Y. Emotional is one good way to look at this. Pseudoscientific may be even more encompassing. Pseudoscientific is the claim that a conclusion adhered to science but in actuality the scientific method was not used to validate the conclusion.

Quote:

I say the universe is vast enough for many possibilities including "God". And yes current human knowledge is flawed and limited and cannot possibly understand all things

All bodies of knowledge have their base assumptions. If the characteristic of a truth is incompatible with a base assumption the body can't be used to judge the value of that truth. Science requires objects to be physical. When an object is claimed to be non-physical ; science can't be used to test that truth. Other means must be employed.

So does science disprove God? I believe we're in the same camp here. Science can't prove or disprove God because her characteristics don't fit with the base requirements of an object of inquiry for science.

@BrianK

Quote:

I fail to see an example of the Sun's weather proving a definitive everything is natural. Nor have you demonstrated denialist predictions are more accurate.

That was not the question. The problem is about predictions: predictions, scenarii, projections, no matter how you name them, are destined to failed when the underlying physical processes are not sufficiently known, not known at all, just assumed and/or deficiently implemented/modelized. So building conviction (on climate or other matter) on such house of cards is like taking seriously astrology to drive your life.

Quote:

In science we make predictions and observe how the events play out.

That was done in climate also. IPCC models predicted a tropospheric temperature fingerprint that satellites/radiosondes failed to discover. IPCC models predicted a rise in mean temperature that never materializes. IPCC models predicted an increase in ocean heat content (OHC) although OHC is stable since 2003. IPCC models predicted a rise of sea level while it is also stable since 2006. So one is founded to say that IPCC models and resulting predictions are seriously flawed and need deep revisions at the root (understanding of the physical processes at work). I predict (see, I also make predictions) that such revisions will not be assessed and integrated in the future IPCC report (AR5) if lead authors will be reviewers of their own work (as they were in AR1, SAR, TAR and AR4): the Science can not be correct when the scientific process of independent evaluation is such malignantly perverted.

Quote:

Each of you is making the excuse to not make the predictions and by doing so in no way can show that your view is more accurate and therefore are failing to do science....

There is no point making predictions when it is not possible to verify them and given the associated great uncertainty of models, risk management and prospective adaptation/mitigation are suitable and better approaches.

I am waiting for a response to my easy question...

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@BrianK

Quote:

In 2008 there were 50,000 papers published concerning Climate Change.

I am smelling the characteristic odour of funds...

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@BrianK

Quote:

Science is based on the model that the universe is observable and consistent.

More correctly, Science is based on the fact that the Universe is observable and consistent and attempts to model it.

Quote:

It's definitely not scientific to say we can observe X but can't model it and can never predict the outcome but the answer is Y.

And it is definitely anti-scientific to observe X, model it, build predictions Y, and because Y do not fit X, 'correct' the real world observations X accordingly afterwards.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

There is no point making predictions when it is not possible to verify them

I agree with the logic here. Applying this to climate, as you did, indicates the impossibility of verifying a model means your conclusion is one not supported by science. It well may be correct but by your definitions science can't possibly prove you to be right. EDIT: Your conclusion can't even be derived by science in your statement.

When your base assumption is science is a body of knowledge that can't prove X then you are left to denying science in order to maintain your belief of impossibility... EDIT: This is why you oppose funding. Afterall why fund science when science will never be usable to explain the planet. IMO it's a good thing when Science provides us a better understanding in how the universe operations even if the common sense is wrong, which it has been many a time.

Quote:

And it is definitely anti-scientific to observe X, model it, build predictions Y, and because Y do not fit X, 'correct' the real world observations X accordingly afterwards.

Depends... EDIT: But, the real thing going on here is you are attempting to show that a set of cases is bad science. Science is inately self correctly. It'll weed out the bad science as the good science provides for better models. The foundation of Climate Science is Science afterall. The good science will win in the end. This is much different than your answer, aka goddidit.


As for your unanswered question.... My point here is to discuss why the natural events are being demonstrated scientifically. It's impossible for you to do that. Because your base assumption is that natural events can't be modeled and even if modeled can't be verified. We're talking from two different bodies of knowledge, me the foundation is one of science and you a common sense based on faith. They often can't be rectified. So if you feel I've left some question of yours unanswered then meh. EDIT (reworked a bit)

Last edited by BrianK on 30-Jul-2009 at 01:35 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 29-Jul-2009 at 12:23 PM.

@TMTisFree

Quote:

I am smelling the characteristic odour of funds...

try this bit of news following a point i made some time ago in post #277.

Greenpeace Vandals Target PC Maker in a Big Way

The international environmental group Greenpeace grabbed the attention of Hewlett-Packard executives and the public Tuesday in Palo Alto, Calif., with the message "Hazardous Materials" drawn with children's finger paint over 11,500 square feet.

the full story

Last edited by Interesting on 31-Jul-2009 at 06:29 PM.

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@Interesting

Don't get your point, but good on Greenpeace. Its OT but I had expected that the EEC market would have long since got HP and other big American manufacturers moving in the non-toxic direction. I have two HP products on my desk. Both need to be trashed. Nowadays I only buy ROHS compliant products even though there is no law about it in NZ I know of.

Noel

Warming again

Here in NZ, after years in which my power usage continued to diminish even though the bills kept rising (unjustifiably according to a commission to investigate them), and during which I could just about count on my fingers the number of times a heater got switched on through the winter, we have been having a winter rather colder than we are now used to and one which started a month or two early.

For about a fortnight, when we should be half way through the coldest weeks, I've suspected a warming. A few days ago the sight of blossoms a month early confirmed my suspicions although there are plenty of flowers through winter. Today we were told by a government institute (NIWA) that a la nina phase giving us a brief period of cold was over. An el nino phase is getting under way and we can expect warming through the remainder of winter. I'm not looking forward to summer heat even though we have it mild compared to most.

Now I'm watching the predictions and wondering if I'm still going to get a dry suit to help me with my further adventures . . .hmm . . . what are your climate predictions for the next ten years and why?

Noel

Last edited by NoelFuller on 31-Jul-2009 at 02:55 AM.

@BrianK

Quote:

Applying this to climate, as you did, indicates the impossibility of verifying a model means your conclusion is one not supported by science. It well may be correct but by your definitions science can't possibly prove you to be right.

What means this garbage? You are confused. Models are easily verified against reality: their short-term predictions or past postdictions do match or not. What is unverifiable (relative to the current will of politics) is long-term predictions.

Quote:

When your base assumption is science is a body of knowledge that can't prove X then you are left to denying science in order to maintain your belief of impossibility...

Another poor attempt to twist my words. Nowhere I said predictions are impossible: I said there is no point doing unverifiable predictions. I am verifying everyday that predictions (be it in markets or weather), while not impossible per se, are only useful for a relatively short time-scale. Your 'logic' has found its limits here.

Quote:

Depends...

Impressive argument...

Quote:

As for your unanswered question...

The response is a number, you know, Maths, logic, Physics, boolean operators, here is again the question in case you missed it: Quote:

A black body radiates 100 W/m^2. One directs a 101 W/m^2 thermal radiation to the black body. What is the resulting radiation level by the black body?

in response to your claim: Quote:

It's just unclear when you falsely claim that the Greenhouse Effect doesn't comply.

There are two possibilities at this point
1/ you don't know the response; why bothering discussing the Physics and models with you when such basics escape you? Anyone wanting to help BrianK?
2/ you know the response but you don't want to give it: interesting...

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@NoelFuller

Quote:

my power usage continued to diminish even though the bills kept rising

Strange. Here my power usage is rising but my bills decrease.

Bye
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

my power usage continued to diminish even though the bills kept rising Strange. Here my power usage is rising but my bills decrease.

Let me guess - you generate more and more of your own power :)

Noel

Quote:

I fail to see an example of the Sun's weather proving a definitive everything is natural. Nor have you demonstrated denialist predictions are more accurate.

Most skeptics does not believe all warming is natural. They do however believe that most warming is caused by sun and other natural climate fluctuations.

@TMTisFree

Quote:

IPCC models predicted a tropospheric temperature fingerprint that satellites/radiosondes failed to discover.

Part of science is change and growth of understanding. When the results don't match the prediction then it's time to go back to model. This result changed the model, surprise science at work, and improved our understanding of nature works -- http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/20c.html is one good explaination.

Quote:

IPCC models predicted a rise in mean temperature that never materializes

Mean temperature has risen decade after decade. Even with the 1998 El Nino event the mean of the 90s decade is cooler than the mean of the 00s decade. Yes we have another half year of data to include here, this year isn't cool enough to break this cycle yet.

Quote:

IPCC models predicted a rise of sea level while it is also stable since 2006.

Ocean sea level in 2008 beat the 2006 level.

Quote:

There is no point making predictions when it is not possible to verify them

Now you come back and tell us the opposite of your orginal claim? Quote:

Models are easily verified against reality:

I know you like to call me confused but when you provide statements that oppose each other believe me it's just not me who might seem confused. Even long term predictions are verified. Humans do nothing, continue what we're doing now and see what the results are.

Quote:

Quote: What I have not seen is a denialist researcher model. This sole fact should point you to the futility of doing so.

We strongly disagree that climate science is useless. I see in here the foundation in why we differ. I believe science will figure it out. You believe science is incapable of answer. Yet, you accept the answer that it's all natural and man can't influence the climate as the truth. Yet, by your own statements the science will never demonstrate that as true, afterall it's futile.

This is why you say things like Quote:

am smelling the characteristic odour of funds...

I think we'll both agree that climate science is not fully undestood. My view says we should let science do what it's meant to do - build our understanding of nature. You see the endeavor of sciencists as futile, thus all wasted monies.

Quote:

There are two possibilities at this point

Or a third I simply tire of you dropping units of measure, constructing systems of unrealistic outcomes, providing "science" to disprove a non-scientific analogy, repeating the same logical fallacies over and over, and claiming science can't model reality but the truth is goddidit.

Is climate science perfect? No it's an endeavor by man. Science is self correcting and over time it will improve and find the correct answer. Modeling and predicting is the way this is done. It takes, surprise, money for people to eat, and they need to get paid to do science else it'll never get done. As someone who feels modeling climate is futile of course you'd refuse to pay anyone. IMO science's role is to understand nature and climate is one are we need to continue research.

EDIT: Here's one I left unanswered from you
Quote:

IPCC models predicted an increase in ocean heat content (OHC) although OHC is stable since 2003.

Like your other claims this one was false too. Here's a good graph page . There is a line in the graph every 2 years. Thus, 2003 is halfway between the first and second lines. Check out the levels post 2003. Pacific up, Atlantic up, Indian up. The data comes from here 2003 OHC 3 month and yearly averages is lower than 2005 and after. 2003 is neither a stable point nor a high point.

Last edited by BrianK on 01-Aug-2009 at 05:28 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 01-Aug-2009 at 05:27 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 01-Aug-2009 at 02:04 PM.

Century old sunspot mystery solved by sketches?

@NoelFuller

Quote:

Let me guess - you generate more and more of your own power :)

Not exactly. I switched from propane gas to a (heavily subsidized) heat pump powered by a nuclear plant somewhere. I also sell my own produced electricity 5 times the cost of the usual (nuclear based) power. All in all I estimate I cut the power bill by 3 (I could cut by 4 but I also heat the outdoor swimming pool in inter-seasons and refresh the house during summer). There are millions to get with all subsidies in the artificial green market ; the bottom line is rich people are helped to pay less by poor people who then pay more their power: the inhuman face of ecologism in action...

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@BrianK

Quote:

When the results don't match the prediction then it's time to go back to model.

What you really mean is that the climate science is not settled and there is no consensus. Congratulations. Verification against reality and short term predictions by models have failed miserably. Going back to models will not change anything: the AGW hypothesis models are built on is flawed and no one sane enough will ever build a house without proper foundations. Your bogus claim #1.

Quote:

Mean temperature has risen decade after decade.

One can also say "Mean temperature has risen century after century." and thus proving nothing except the AGW hypothesis is based on hot air. Your bogus claim #2.

Quote:

Ocean sea level in 2008 beat the 2006 level.

I provided here a plot showing how bogus your claim #3 is.

Quote:

Now you come back and tell us the opposite of your orginal claim?

You seems obtuse. Some definitions to help you understand:
1/ reality: what happens and happened in the real world ;
2/ short term: what will happen in a few time (at the human scale) ;
3/ long term: what will happen in the far distant future.
Climatic models are verifiable against 1/ and 2/ but in practice usually are not verified. When they are, they fail 1/ and 2/ tests (they are falsified) because of their inability to reproduce the essence of the atmospheric processes. That fact alone renders 3/ predictions meaningless, in addition to be unverifiable by anyone (unfalsifiable). Your bogus claim #4.

Quote:

Even long term predictions are verified.

Please provide the plan of your time machine. Until then, this is your bogus claim #5.

Quote:

We strongly disagree that climate science is useless.

I strongly agree this is a fallacious bogus claim (#6) because nowhere I wrote "climate science is useless". I merely wrote unverifiable long term predictions output by inherently divergent from reality climatic models is useless.

Quote:

You believe science is incapable of answer.

Bogus claim (and a change in scope fallacy) again (#7) as the modern area is the result of technical achievement based on Science progress (one thought it was common understanding). Nevertheless, long term predictions of wrongly based climatic models are useless because not being able to be verifiable/falsifiable: thus, according to the scientific method, they rest out of the Science paradigm:

Quote:

You see the endeavor of sciencists as futile, thus all wasted monies.

Bogus claim (and a generalization fallacy, #8). I was speaking about money and time loose on models:
1/ based on a wrong hypothesis ;
2/ which short term predictions and verifications against reality having failed.
3/ which long term predictions meaning nothing.

Quote:

Or a third I simply tire of you dropping units of measure,

A poor attempt to avoid to respond. But I understand it, as the response comes in opposition of your belief. Let me quote the problem again: Quote:

A black body radiates 100 W/m^2. One directs a 101 W/m^2 thermal radiation to the black body. What is the resulting radiation level by the black body?

The correct response is not 201 W/m^2 but 101 W/m^2 because:
1/ radiant units are not additive ;
2/ the Laws of thermodynamics apply.
This simple experiment thought shows that:
1/ IPCC models based on radiative and GHG theories are borked as is their understanding of the Physics pictured in the radiative balance cartoon ;
2/ as the 2nd Law prohibits the heat to flow from a cold atmosphere to a warm surface, modellers have 'resolved this problem' by nullifying the thermal conductivity of CO² in atmosphere in their models, thus allowing a prophetic 'backward radiation' warming warmer surface.
I have no hope the simple rationale of the above scratches the surface of your enkysted beliefs, justifying your lack of response. No available number for this lame excuse.

Quote:

Like your other claims this one was false too.

From you own link:

one can see my claim: Quote:

IPCC models predicted an increase in ocean heat content (OHC) although OHC is stable since 2003.

is entirely correct. Your bogus claim #9.

An impressive list of bogus claims, fallacies and lame excuse of you.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@BrianK

TMTisFree has denied your statements so completely that you must be completely right.

Noel

@Tomas

Quote:

Most skeptics does not believe all warming is natural. They do however believe that most warming is caused by sun and other natural climate fluctuations.

and in every case they try to claim, the cycles do not have any warming trend. It takes some deliberate ignorance and poor maths to achieve the natural cycles claims but their exponents are not out to convince scientists who will see through their silly manipulations, but people who are not equipped or not disposed to search out the real deal.

Concerning recent warming,

It is quite true that the sun is the source of most of the energy we are concerned with but there is no current trend contributing to observed global warming, the earth's orbit is curently circular for instance. The last time the same conditions applied with respect milankovitch cycles: variations in the Earth's eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession, were 400 thousand years ago, the then interglacial lasting approx 50k years.

If anything a very slight solar cooling may be happening.

The other natural cycles such as ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation) are also trendless or almost so - a very slight cooling perhaps, contradicting recent laughable attempts to claim ENSO is responsible for 70% of observed global warming. In the next few years you will see that the little plateau of very recent years will have given way to the el nino upswing and it will be seen that the predicted warming based on human GHG emissions will be on course more's the pity.

The oft repeated mantram that temperature rise lags CO2 rise by 800 years (or more) applies only to the end of a glaciation cycle. Every time it has been cited here it has been without this qualification and without any attempt at explanation. The intention of course is to somehow support the suggestion that currently observed global warming originated somehow in the MWP - strictly a la-la-land magic theory.

There are other notions all of which fail to explain recent warming apart from the effect of our own activities on the planet.

Noel

@NoelFuller

Quote:

TMTisFree has denied your statements so completely that you must be completely right.

Quote:

The oft repeated mantram that temperature rise lags CO2 rise by 800 years (or more) applies only to the end of a glaciation cycle. Every time it has been cited here it has been without this qualification and without any attempt at explanation. The intention of course is to somehow support the suggestion that currently observed global warming originated somehow in the MWP - strictly a la-la-land magic theory.

If memory serves I believe TMTisFree stated that CO2 'always' lags by 800 years, perhaps it was 600 years.

The problem with the arguement from the denier's is a false understanding of Global Warming. Global Warming says CO2 is the largest factor in today's changing cilmate. Showing CO2 wasn't the reason XX thousand years ago is interesting but in no way disproves the Global Warming claim.

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Please provide the plan of your time machine. Until then, this is your bogus claim #5.

Sorry for the mispelling of verified, it should be verifiable. The sentence afterwards even describes the example of this.. 'Even long term predictions are verified. Humans do nothing, continue what we're doing now and see what the results are. '

Quote:

Bogus claim (and a change in scope fallacy)

was your response to my writing - 'You believe science is incapable of answer. ' There's no change in scope here. We're talking your belief on climate science. We're talking climate science in this thread not all science. You were simply confused by an implicit. The bogus claim is the one of a changed scope. You do it later too when you claim Quote:

generalization fallacy, #8

Again you are either confused or purposefully trying to detract. I'll let you make that binary choice.

Quote:

Nevertheless, long term predictions of wrongly based climatic models are useless because not being able to be verifiable/falsifiable: thus, according to the scientific method, they rest out of the Science

Long term predictions are falsifiable. We simply measure the climate in various aspects for the next 100 years and observe how the climate trended over that time. Of course they are verifiable, we simply have to wait a century to do so.

What is clearly out of science is not building an experiment (green circle) which can result in conclusions to analyze (blue circle). This is your claim as to the futility of natural modeling to scientifically prove your belief of 'it's all nature'

Some of your incorrect responses... Not going to worry about all of them.
Quote:

I provided here a plot showing how bogus your claim #3 is.

Did you really mean to plot Anartctic Sea Ice changes to disprove oceans did not change?

Quote:

IPCC models predicted an increase in ocean heat content (OHC) although OHC is stable since 2003

I know it's difficult to read small embedded graphs and without the exact data points. But, this one isn't too difficult. We're looking for a stablization since 2003.
2003 is roughly 7 on this graph. 2005 is 12. There is clearly an increase since 2003. This means we have not been stable since 2003.