Merged Recent climate observations disagreement with projections

[BenBurch]

I'll say it once and I'll say it again. Your idiotic rationals against global warming invalidates every science and engineering field.

It is indeed profoundly anti-intellectual.

 

[macdoc]

If only 6% of Republicans are scientists.....where does that leave the libbies......

Only Six Percent Of Scientists Are Republicans: Pew Poll

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/10/only-six-percent-of-scien_n_229382.html

 

[MattusMaximus]

I only deny virtual reality.

I'll say it once and I'll say it again. Your idiotic rationals against global warming invalidates every science and engineering field.

Good grief, Poptech, this again?!

Okay, since you're back to that old argument, I'll nail you down just as I did before you ran away from the other thread...

You claimed earlier that computer climate models weren't 100% accurate in their predictions and therefore couldn't be trusted. You specifically stated that without 100% accuracy no such computer modeling was useful - and you then stated that only "empirical experimentation" was trustworthy in science.

I then pointed out to you that in all scientific experimentation we must deal with uncertainty and thus no such experiments are ever 100% accurate. So, by your own rationale & in order to be logically consistent, you must then conclude that all empirical experimentation is also useless and non-trustworthy.

So, again, I pose the question to you (which you have attempted to dodge & run away from many times):

1. Will you conclude that all empirically-oriented science is just as useless and non-trustworthy as computer climate models, in order to maintain the logical consistency of your argument?

- OR -

2. Will you acknowledge the logical inconsistency in your arguments, and thus admit that you are creating a straw man?

Don't try to dodge or run away, because I have the quotes & discussion at my fingertips and can clearly display any attempts on your part to move the goalposts. I have no compunction about revealing your dishonesty should you attempt, again, to weasel out of this hole you've dug yourself into.

Now, please answer the question.

 

[Poptech]

Now, please answer the question.

I already have but apparently your lack of understanding regarding virtual reallity means you cannot comprehend it.

Virtual Reality is not 100% real, the real world is. Thus the "laboratory" in the REAL world is the only location where an experiment cam be performed with meaningful results since no "laboratory" bias that is not real exists. You constant confusion about experiment vs laboratory is getting old.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

I already have but apparently your lack of understanding regarding virtual reallity means you cannot comprehend it.

Virtual Reality is not 100% real, the real world is. Thus the "laboratory" in the REAL world is the only location where an experiment cam be performed with meaningful results since no "laboratory" bias that is not real exists. You constant confusion about experiment vs laboratory is getting old.

Even after starting a thread about problems with the US weather monitoring network, Poptech still can't figure out that real-world experiments suffer from problems such as measurement errors and inaccuracies and limitations on the representativeness of samples.

 

[BenBurch]

If only 6% of Republicans are scientists.....where does that leave the libbies......

...

We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in 'reality'. And reality has a well-known liberal bias.

 

[D'rok]

I think Poptech has provided an ingenious solution to the problem of experimental uncertainty in climate models.

All you sciencey types have to do is just run your models on computers located in laboratories! 100% Real World results!

 

[Poptech]

Even after starting a thread about problems with the US weather monitoring network, Poptech still can't figure out that real-world experiments suffer from problems such as measurement errors and inaccuracies and limitations on the representativeness of samples.

No you can't comprehend BASIC logic.

"Laboratory" Real World = Everything 100% Real
"Laboratory" Virtual World = Everything Not 100% Real

Experiment - "Laboratory" Real World = Experiment will behave 100% according to all natural laws. Possibility exists for accurate experiment.
Experiment - "Laboratory" Virtual World = Experiment will not behave 100% according to all natural laws. No possibility exists for accurate experiment.

Logically only a Real World experiment has any possibility of accuracy. This is irrefutable.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

No you can't comprehend BASIC logic.

"Laboratory" Real World = Everything 100% Real
"Laboratory" Virtual World = Everything Not 100% Real

Experiment - "Laboratory" Real World = Experiment will behave 100% according to all natural laws. Possibility exists for accurate experiment.
Experiment - "Laboratory" Virtual World = Experiment will not behave 100% according to all natural laws. No possibility exists for accurate experiment.

Logically only a Real World experiment has any possibility of accuracy. This is irrefutable.

I guess that I'm going to have to figure out a way to explain things more simply so that you might be able to understand. Every measurement of the real world is made by an instrument with a limited accuracy. There are also many sources of error: instrument malfunction, operator error, etc. In addition, it isn't possible to measure everything continually. We can only measure a sample. There is no guarantee that this sample is actually a good representation of the entire population. There is no real world experiment that is 100 percent accurate.

I understand there are limitations to numerical models (which are never referred to as "virtual reality" by anyone who actually works with them). Climate researchers are aware of the limiitations. I also understand that climate models try to predict the magnitude and distribution of climate change, but climate models are not necessary to show that there is a high probability that greenhouse gases are contributing to climate change.

If the weather forecast is for 75 degF tomorrow but then a cold front will come through and it will only be 40 degF the next day and the actuall temperatures turn out to be 77 degF and 44 degF, the forecast is "wrong" but if you chose what to wear based on the forecast you would still dress properly for the weather.

 

[Poptech]

Yes I will try to explain things more simply as well.

Virtual Reality = Not Real

 

[BenBurch]

The map is not the terrain. But only real fool ignores the map while attempting to traverse it.

 

[Poptech]

Cartography and Computers = Google Maps which has nothing to do with Computer Climate Models uselessness for prediction.

 

[macdoc]

What you think if you toss out the utter nonsense often enough the manure will stick somewhere??.....

One can see PTs gullible would be audience reflected here - as ill informed as he is....

snip

But if scientists are pleased about being admired and trusted, they should be aware that scientific conclusions aren't held in such high regard.

Eighty-four percent of scientists consider the case for anthropogenic climate change to be on solid footing, and over 90 percent were either very or somewhat concerned about it (the discrepancy arises from a those scientists who consider the current warning to be driven primarily by natural events). This is especially striking given that geoscientists were the least represented scientific discipline in the survey, and acceptance of anthropogenic climate change is highest among climatologists.
In contrast, only about half of the public are convinced of the scientific community's conclusions, and that drops to only 21 percent among those who self-identify as conservative Republicans. Even among the most liberal fraction of the public, however, the numbers are lower than within the scientific community. One reason for this is that only half of the public believes that the scientific community has itself reached agreement on these matters.

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/07/public-trusts-scientists-not-their-conclusions.ars

 

[DC]

someone posted a good video abot the sciences of Global warming, PT, did you watch it? you should, alot you can learn.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo

watch all the parts

 

[technoextreme]

Logically only a Real World experiment has any possibility of accuracy. This is irrefutable.

No it is easily refutable. There are no linear time invariant systems in the real world and yet a lot of things are built under the assumption that the system is LTI.

 

[tsig]

No you can't comprehend BASIC logic.

"Laboratory" Real World = Everything 100% Real
"Laboratory" Virtual World = Everything Not 100% Real

Experiment - "Laboratory" Real World = Experiment will behave 100% according to all natural laws. Possibility exists for accurate experiment.
Experiment - "Laboratory" Virtual World = Experiment will not behave 100% according to all natural laws. No possibility exists for accurate experiment.

Logically only a Real World experiment has any possibility of accuracy. This is irrefutable.

I refute it thus:

Types on computer.

 

[DC]

if PT only knew how much his live is dependen on Virtual reality, especially when it comes to security.

FEA in Automobile industry / airtravel
virtual models of the weather for weather predictions
virtual simulations of the production of dozens of products he uses every day.
virtual simulations for green lights on the streets
Virtual simulations of traintraffic etc.

 

[Poptech]

someone posted a good video abot the sciences of Global warming, PT, did you watch it? you should, alot you can learn.

Bjorn Lomborg: Our priorities for saving the world (Video) (17min) (Bjørn Lomborg, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Economics)
John R. Christy: Global Warming - What Do The Numbers Show? (Video) (65min) (John R. Christy, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Sciences)
Patrick J. Michaels: Climate of Extremes (Video) (60min) (Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology)
R. Tim Patterson: Global Warming - Some Real Science (Video) (33min) (R. Tim Patterson, Ph.D. Professor of Earth Science)
Robert M. Carter: Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause? (Video) (36min) (Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental and Earth Sciences)
Roy W. Spencer: Global Warming: Manmade Mess or Nature's Norm? (Video) (63min) (Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D. Former Senior Scientist for Climate Studies, NASA)

20/20: Give Me a Break: Global Warming (Video) (8min)
Apocalypse? No! (Video) (1hr 26min)
BS! - Environmental Hysteria (Video) (29min)
BS! - Being Green (Video) (28min)
CBC: Doomsday Called Off (Video) (44min)
Climate Catastrophe Cancelled (Video) (25min)
CNN: Exposed: The Climate of Fear (Video) (42min)
The Great Global Warming Swindle (Video) (1hr 14min)
Unstoppable Solar Cycles (Video) (10min)
What is Normal? A Critique of Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming Theory (Video) (55min)

Did you watch all these videos? A lot you can learn.

Automobile industry

Name one automobile approved safe by the NHTSA based solely on computer models

 

[DC]

Bjorn Lomborg: Our priorities for saving the world (Video) (17min) (Bjørn Lomborg, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Economics)
John R. Christy: Global Warming - What Do The Numbers Show? (Video) (65min) (John R. Christy, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Sciences)
Patrick J. Michaels: Climate of Extremes (Video) (60min) (Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology)
R. Tim Patterson: Global Warming - Some Real Science (Video) (33min) (R. Tim Patterson, Ph.D. Professor of Earth Science)
Robert M. Carter: Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause? (Video) (36min) (Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental and Earth Sciences)
Roy W. Spencer: Global Warming: Manmade Mess or Nature's Norm? (Video) (63min) (Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D. Former Senior Scientist for Climate Studies, NASA)

20/20: Give Me a Break: Global Warming (Video) (8min)
Apocalypse? No! (Video) (1hr 26min)
BS! - Environmental Hysteria (Video) (29min)
BS! - Being Green (Video) (28min)
CBC: Doomsday Called Off (Video) (44min)
Climate Catastrophe Cancelled (Video) (25min)
CNN: Exposed: The Climate of Fear (Video) (42min)
The Great Global Warming Swindle (Video) (1hr 14min)
Unstoppable Solar Cycles (Video) (10min)
What is Normal? A Critique of Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming Theory (Video) (55min)

Did you watch all these videos? A lot you can learn.


Name one automobile approved safe by the NHTSA based solely on computer models

none, but why solely?
that isnt the case for global warming models.
they also compare the virtual data with real world data.

 

[macdoc]

PT supplied this

The Great Global Warming Swindle (Video) (1hr 14min)

Classic PT junk

Don't let truth stand in the way of a red-hot debunking of climate change

The science might be bunkum, the research discredited. But all that counts for Channel 4 is generating controversy

o George Monbiot
o The Guardian, Tuesday 13 March 2007

Were it not for dissent, science, like politics, would have stayed in the dark ages. All the great heroes of the discipline - Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein - took tremendous risks in confronting mainstream opinion. Today's crank has often proved to be tomorrow's visionary.

But the syllogism does not apply. Being a crank does not automatically make you a visionary. There is little prospect, for example, that Dr Mantombazana Tshabalala-Msimang, the South African health minister who has claimed Aids can be treated with garlic, lemon and beetroot, will be hailed as a genius. But the point is often confused. Professor David Bellamy, for example, while making the incorrect claim that wind farms do not have "any measurable effect" on total emissions of carbon dioxide, has compared himself to Galileo.

The problem with The Great Global Warming Swindle, which caused a sensation when it was broadcast on Channel 4 last week, is that to make its case it relies not on future visionaries, but on people whose findings have already been proved wrong.

continues

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/mar/13/science.media

9 March 2007
Swindled!
Filed under:

— group @ 5:36 PM - (Türkçe)

By William and Gavin

On Thursday March 8th, the UK TV Channel 4 aired a programme titled “The Great Global Warming Swindle”. We were hoping for important revelations and final proof that we have all been hornswoggled by the climate Illuminati, but it just repeated the usual specious claims we hear all the time. We feel swindled. Indeed we are not the only ones: Carl Wunsch (who was a surprise addition to the cast) was apparently misled into thinking this was going to be a balanced look at the issues (the producers have a history of doing this), but who found himself put into a very different context indeed [Update: a full letter from Wunsch appears as comment 109 on this post]

continues
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/

Opening line of letter from Carl Wunsch

Below is the text of a letter from Carl Wunsch, reproduced with permission.

Mr. Steven Green
Head of Production
Wag TV
2D Leroy House
436 Essex Road
London N1 3QP

10 March 2007

Dear Mr. Green:

I am writing to record what I told you on the telephone yesterday about
your Channel 4 film "The Global Warming Swindle." Fundamentally, I am the one who was swindled---

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/

This is exactly the kind of redolent crap you rely on PT - and you try and pretend it's climate science........