Merged AGW without HADCRUT3

[lomiller]

OK, I should be working now, but the unprecedented ignorance on this thread merited a response.


Seriously. This is your argument? "Other laws exist in science

These are not “other” laws, global warming is a prediction arising from these laws. If you want to claim it won’t happen you need to tell us why these laws are wrong. I await your evidence they are…

OK, let me spell it out for you: the reason the stuff you refer to above is considered GOOD SCIENCE is because people went out, set up an experiment, made a series of observations, understood the measurement uncertainty associated with those observations

So you are saying the only “good science” is bench testing in a laboratory. Interesting but wrong. I could change a couple words in your post and have something that routinely comes from ID’ers.

Please note importance of measurement uncertainty and "CORRECT STATISTICAL MODEL" right there in the heart of the science.

Again, climate science is about physical models not statistical models.

 

[Megalodon]

Why dont you rebut Coolsceptic's points instead of handwaving and attacking?

What point? that he doesn't know what he's arguing against, or that he doesn't know squat about science?

Every day after reading through these threads and adding to it more info that comes out in the press about data manipulation,fudging numbers,etc by the AGW camp it's pretty obvious it looks like a scam to anyone with a half skeptical mind.

Yeah... the press is the way to go on scientific matters. The same press where you learn that vaccines cause autism, and evolution is just a theory, and a discredited one at that...

BTW, why don't you ask CoolSceptic or mhaze to falsify AGW?

 

[mhaze]

I thought after years of battling against it, you would at least know the basics by now. The hypothesis is:

The accumulation of anthropogenic GHGs in the atmosphere will change the planet's energy balance and increase the global temperatures.

Lots to falsify there, and we know you've failed at it for years now...

Ok.

But that hypothesis isn't enough to generate any scientific interest or public funding.

1. it does not address the past, only the future.
2. it does not address the extent of the hypothesized effect, therefore if there was an effect of 0.00001C/millenia your hypothesis might be true.

I just think that if you want to seriously talk about hypotheses and the critical evaluation of them, you should clearly state in a fashion adequate (not necessarily to the layperson comprehensible) to scientific thinking and methods...

WHAT THE HELL IS THAT DARN AGW HYPOTHESIS, MEGALODON?

 

[BenBurch]

Why dont you rebut Coolsceptic's points instead of handwaving and attacking?.

...

Because he has no point to rebut that I can discern.

 

[mhaze]

Wow. You haven't understood a thing I said. Which doesn't surprise me.

Since the Hurst phenomenon drives global temperatures through (amongst other things) a GHG far more powerful than CO2 is, if I falsified the concept of GHGs, then I would be falsifying one of the most important mechanisms through which LTP gets into the global temperature measurement.....

I'm going to seriously suggest you copy the relevant parts of your discussion to CA or Watts and continue the discussion there, because a lot of people will not have heard of this area of study and it's implications for the larger understanding of climate are quite profound.

Not sure which would be better, likely Watts as it seems possible to keep the heavy math out and still have the concepts understood.

 

[Megalodon]

But that hypothesis isn't enough to generate any scientific interest or public funding.

Fortunately that never was a measure of the reality of a hypothesis. You are -of course- wrong, since it was this hypothesis that, once it's predictions started occurring, generated a lot of interest, if less than adequate funding.

it does not address the past, only the future.

You are wrong, but since when does an hypothesis have to address the past to be true?

it does not address the extent of the hypothesized effect, therefore if there was an effect of 0.00001C/millenia your hypothesis might be true.

Yes, it would. However, it's easy to see that that is not the case. You are asking about work that was made after the development of the hypothesis. You know, when eventually it became a theory.

I just think that if you want to seriously talk about hypotheses and the critical evaluation of them, you should clearly state in a fashion adequate (not necessarily to the layperson comprehensible) to scientific thinking and methods...

Which I did. Your lack of comprehension is your problem alone.

WHAT THE HELL IS THAT DARN AGW HYPOTHESIS, MEGALODON?

Why do you have to shout? Everyone can see that you are a troll without such antics.

 

[lomiller]

You can always google Carl Wunsch and find out why Milankovitch cycles are problematic and why stochastic models fit the ice core temperature reconstructions rather well.

While you are at it you can also find out about deniers misrepresenting his work

 

[lomiller]

Why dont you rebut Coolsceptic's points

It’s been done pages ago. He is claiming that because he can come up with a statistical model that produces similar results the physics underpinning global warming must be wrong.

In the process he claims that observable effects “just happen” and that they are not caused by underlying physical effects. This is at odds with science, and indeed any philosophy that says the universe is knowable. It’s a direct parallel to the young earth creationist claim that the universe was create “with age” and it just looks like it matches the predictions arising from physics.

 

[mhaze]

....You are -of course- wrong...You are wrong... lack of comprehension is your problem alone.....Why do you have to shout? ....you are a troll

So you stand with your "hypothesis of AGW" as previously stated?

The accumulation of anthropogenic GHGs in the atmosphere will change the planet's energy balance and increase the global temperatures.

 

[Megalodon]

So you stand with your "hypothesis of AGW" as previously stated?

There was a question and several comments in the post you quoted. Where are the answers?

 

[CoolSceptic]

You're as much of a psychic as you are insightful and interesting.

Let us know when you have anything but stupidity to contribute...

Where did I claim to be a psychic? I said I was guessing at what your response would be. Do you realise it is possible to guess at something without claiming psychic powers? I can guess at what a die will roll, or I can guess at what the temperature will be in 4 weeks time outside my house. I don't need to claim psychic powers to do that.

Seriously megalodon, you have some real comprehension failures going on here. It's almost embarrassing watching.

But of course, making an idiotic claim is a lot easier than answering the point.

 

[CoolSceptic]

That's funny... I only corrected your very deficient notions of how science works, but you managed to divine my reactions and opinions on other matters...

Get help, seriously...

LOL. As already noted, I did not "divine your reactions". I guessed at what your reaction would be. Seems I might have touched a nerve as well. Lots of anger in your answer, no discernable intelligence.

 

[CoolSceptic]

Why dont you rebut Coolsceptic's points instead of handwaving and attacking?

Not that hard a concept really. If it's that fallible show it instead of the oh it's a waste of time, go back to school nonsense.

Simple: because all the activists here do is parrot what the likes of realclimate tell them to.

Let's be clear here. There is a lot of bad science on both sides of the AGW debate, and finding good science isn't easy. There are standard "talking points" from non-scientists on the sceptic side which are frankly just plain wrong. And places like realclimate give them standard responses to this stuff. It's something they do very well.

But there is also some really very good science on the sceptic side. The likes of Cohn, Lins, Mandelbrot, Koutsoyiannis et al. are a great example of this. But their work is very hard to follow; it is far from intuitive and requires some heavy reading to really understand. Realclimate can give snappy answers to bad science, but can't give snappy answers to good science. And without realclimate to tell them what to say, and without the ability to understand the ideas these scientists put forward, they are completely stuck.

All they have left is smear (e.g. comparison to 9/11 truthers) and insist I know nothing about science, without addressing any of my points. It isn't pretty, but it's the best they seem to have.

The 9/11 truther thing is quite entertaining. I've spent some time arguing with 9/11 truthers (not on JREF, although I have used JREF for useful source material) and I know their argument strategies very well. It is no bad thing to analyse and understand the logic of people who make mistakes - a good scientist might know all about Kepler, a great scientist knows all about Brahe as well. Not for his successes, but to know how to avoid his mistakes.

 

[Megalodon]

CoolSceptic:

I corrected you on a stupid comment you made regarding science. You hand-waved a lot, and tried to "guess" what my views on your pet theory are.

It would have been simpler to admit you made a mistake, and ask me about my opinion regarding the Hurst phenomenon and global warming.

Because average, good or great, a scientist knows that you can never prove a scientific hypothesis, but you always have a way to disprove it.

Cheers

PS- Your comparison between AGW and torah divining is still brutally stupid, and an insult to all scientists that work on the field. You should be embarrassed to make it.

 

[CoolSceptic]

These are not “other” laws, global warming is a prediction arising from these laws. If you want to claim it won’t happen you need to tell us why these laws are wrong. I await your evidence they are…

And as I pointed out to megalodon, these same laws also underpin the reason the Hurst phenomenon impacts global temperatures. So what? That doesn't resolve anything.

So you are saying the only “good science” is bench testing in a laboratory.

I said experiment. You said bench testing in a laboratory. Your words, not mine.

Interesting but wrong.

Yes, your words are wrong. Fortunately, they are not my words.

I could change a couple words in your post and have something that routinely comes from ID’ers.

LOL. Yeah, I can change the meaning of your sentences by changing words in them, as well.

Again, climate science is about physical models not statistical models.

Again, we do not have physics to describe all of the processes that happen on earth at a scale demanded by climate models, which is why they are loaded with empirical parameterisations. Again, testing a theoretical model against observations requires a statistical model. Sitting here asserting that there are no statistics doesn't make it so no matter how often you repeat it.

 

[lomiller]

But there is also some really very good science on the sceptic side. The likes of Cohn, Lins, Mandelbrot, Koutsoyiannis et al. are a great example of this. But their work is very hard to follow; it is far from intuitive and requires some heavy reading to really understand.

Umm you do realize none of those people have any background in climate since right? You also realize only one of them, Koutsoyiannis, has even attempted to write a paper in any way connected to climate science and that paper couldn’t get published in a climate related journal was broadly rejected as badly written and irrelevant? The other three are simply you trying to make a false argument from authority, as they have never said anything to indicate they support your position.


Now since you are telling us Koutsoyiannis is such a wonderfull scientist, lets look at his publication record.

Koutsoyiannis

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl...nis"&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

Not bad, but hardly spectacular. The most notable feature, though, is that climate science is well outside his specialty. Any regular on these forums should recognize the syndrome where a scientist who works in one field goes outside his sphere of expertise and ends up with the woo-woo’s.

Now, you have already been given a link to Gavin Schmidt’s comments on the paper you are pitching, so lest look at his publication record.

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?as...&as_yhi=&as_sdt=1.&as_sdtp=on&as_sdts=5&hl=en

More papers, more citations and some of the highest impact journals. Furthermore extensive citations directly relating to climate science and the math behind it. (he is a mathematician, FYI)

Again “good science” is not you going out and finding someone who agrees with out and them promoting them as important authorities. (not that you are even spending much time to see if they actually agree with you)

Realclimate can give snappy answers to bad science, but can't give snappy answers to good science.

as per my links above the realclimate contributor is far more impressive then the person you are linking to. More importantly he has actuly worked in the field he is commenting on.

 

[BenBurch]

Coolskeptic - You insist that there is good science even though you do not understand it? How on earth would you know?

 

[CoolSceptic]

CoolSceptic:

I corrected you on a stupid comment you made regarding science.

Just for kicks, lets review what was said. You claimed under normal scientific methods AGW could be disproven (as BenBurch asserted). Mhaze called you out on it, and pointed out AGW wasn't a hypothesis. You insisted mhaze was wrong, and insisted AGW was a hypothesis. You then, several posts later, mysteriously replaced AGW with something a bit closer to a hypothesis, implicitly acknowledging that actually mhaze was quite correct in his original assertion.

I lol'd.

If that is how you go about "correcting" things, can I recommend a slightly better method?

It would have been simpler to admit you made a mistake, and ask me about my opinion regarding the Hurst phenomenon and global warming.

Eh? You waded into this debate making all kinds of ridiculous assertions. Your assertions were nothing short of ignorant. What, was I supposed to use these psychic powers you seem to think I have to know you were going to post something stupid here, or are you suggesting after posting a ridiculous and flawed attack on me, I was supposed to be all nice and polite and ask you graciously for your opinion? Perhaps if you'd tried politeness first, you may have received a polite response? Just a thought?

Secondly, given your obvious difficulties in comprehending the basics about hypothesis testing, why do you think I'd be remotely interested in your views on the Hurst phenomenon?

Because average, good or great, a scientist knows that you can never prove a scientific hypothesis, but you always have a way to disprove it.

And once again you're wrong. In the Torah codes example, YOU CANNOT DISPROVE THE HYPOTHESIS. Full stop. All you can do is show that the results are not significantly different from random chance. But since your experiment is finite, it is always possible that the effect is simply too small for the experiment to detect. So you haven't disproven anything; you've merely shown that the effect is not significantly different from chance, i.e. there is no evidence to support the hypothesis.

Sheesh. This really isn't hard. If you can't tell the difference between "there is no significant evidence to support the hypothesis" and "the hypothesis is disproven", you shouldn't be in science.

PS- Your comparison between AGW and torah divining is still brutally stupid, and an insult to all scientists that work on the field. You should be embarrassed to make it.

I am using the Torah codes as an example which I think is "neutral territory" (since I suspect we both agree on the result) to illustrate how hypothesis testing works, not as a comparison. But you keep those strawmen coming.

 

[Megalodon]

You then, several posts later, mysteriously replaced AGW with something a bit closer to a hypothesis, implicitly acknowledging that actually mhaze was quite correct in his original assertion.

Edited by Locknar: 

Breach of Rule 12

, since anyone can go back and see the posts in question

What, was I supposed to use these psychic powers you seem to think I have..

Edited by Locknar: 

Breach of Rule 12

In the Torah codes example, YOU CANNOT DISPROVE THE HYPOTHESIS. Full stop.

And that's why it's not a scientific hypothesis, and why your example is nothing less than moronic.

I am using the Torah codes as an example which I think is "neutral territory" (since I suspect we both agree on the result) to illustrate how hypothesis testing works, not as a comparison.

You use that example because you have absolutely no clue how hypothesis testing works in science. For something to be considered a scientific hypothesis it needs to be falsifiable. You have to have a way to disprove it. You have it with AGW.

Is the Hurst phenomenon hypothesis falsifiable, CoolSceptic?

 

[lomiller]

And as I pointed out to megalodon, these same laws also underpin the reason the Hurst phenomenon impacts global temperatures.

Funny yesterday you were adamant the hurst phenomenon was an explanation in it’s own right and needed no physical underpinning. Well that is progress I suppose.

You are still wrong, however. The hurst phenomenon does not arise from the laws themselves rather it comes from the system dynamics. This means, among other things that you can’t properly assess the impact of LTP without significant familiarity with the system in question. Something Koutsoyiannis doesn’t have.

I said experiment.

Well, just for fun, why don’t you explain to us the experiment that proves evolution?

Again, we do not have physics to describe all of the processes that happen on earth at a scale demanded by climate models, which is why they are loaded with empirical parameterisations. Again, testing a theoretical model against observations requires a statistical model. Sitting here asserting that there are no statistics doesn't make it so no matter how often you repeat it.

Eh? Models never include all the physics, they include the relevant physics, and yes all the relevant physics have been included. I don’t know where you get the idea this isn’t the case. If you have specific examples of something significant that has been missed you should publish, this type of constructive addition is usually well received if it’s well supported.