Falsifiable Climate Predictions?

[Megalodon]

Yes, we know... that mean old reality refuses to conform to your political fairy-tales.

Run along now, and stop saying stupid things as a reply to someone's post.

 

[mhaze]

Yes, we know... that mean old reality refuses to conform to your political fairy-tales.

Run along now, and stop saying stupid things as a reply to someone's post.

But the OP subject was the formation of falsifiable hypothesis concerning climate change. Let's look at yours - well, actually it's the one I made up for you, since you only present the graphic, without explaining anything about it:

"By charting decades of temperature from suspect sources, and not detrending for solar cycle and for oceanic PDO and other known cyclic phenomena on temperature, I can puff out a graph using highly autocorrelated data that makes it look like it is progressively warming each decade."

Now, is this falsifiable? No, because it uses the following predicates:

1. use of suspect sources
2. no detrending for solar cycle
3. no detrending for ocean pdo or other cyclic temperature phenomena
4. intent to use highly autocorrelated data

But with those predicates, you haven't produced anything scientific, have you?

Wait - I had to point those factors out, you kept silent about them.

Why?

 

[Megalodon]

First of all, anyone with a functional brain would have noticed that I was referring to Pixel42's post, not the stupidity which opened this thread;

Second, it's bad form to make things up for other people, and you would know that if it wasn't for the absence of the previously mentioned operational encephalon;

Third, from your post we can easily grasp that you don't have the slightest shadow of a notion of what "falsifiable" means;

Lastly, your points indicate that:
1. You are a liar, and a stupid one at that. My source was the NCDC, although if it was the Met Office it would still be above suspect to anyone but scum-sucking propagandists;
2. You have no idea what "cycle" means either;
3. See 2;
4. You keep using words you don't understand.

Now run along and stop wasting everyone's time...

 

[mhaze]

First of all, anyone with a functional brain would have noticed that I was referring to Pixel42's post, not the stupidity which opened this thread;

Second, it's bad form to make things up for other people, and you would know that if it wasn't for the absence of the previously mentioned operational encephalon;

Third, from your post we can easily grasp that you don't have the slightest shadow of a notion of what "falsifiable" means;

Lastly, your points indicate that:
1. You are a liar, and a stupid one at that. My source was the NCDC, although if it was the Met Office it would still be above suspect to anyone but scum-sucking propagandists;
2. You have no idea what "cycle" means either;
3. See 2;
4. You keep using words you don't understand.

Now run along and stop wasting everyone's time...

Now now. Be fair. I clearly stated that I was making up what appears to be the falsifiable hypothesis that you pursue, as erroneous as it may be. I cannot be held responsible for understanding it's flaws or for misunderstanding it's errors. So let's start over:

Have you now, or have you ever been, a card carrying member of one of several well known groups, who engage in any of the following practices?

1. use of suspect sources
2. no detrending for solar cycle
3. no detrending for ocean pdo or other cyclic temperature phenomena
4. intent to use highly autocorrelated data

 

[Megalodon]

Yup, still stupid. If you keep repeating it will not improve...

 

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Pixel42
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8400905.stm

Quote:
This decade 'warmest on record'

The Met Office figures indicate that the years since 2000 - the "noughties" - were on average about 0.18C (0.32F) warmer than years in the 1990s; and that since the 1970s, each decade has seen an increase of about the same scale.

The Lying Liars of ClimateGate shall you quote?

Hmmm.....

Cheers!

The Inability To Read of mhaze shall you demonstrate?

The WMO uses three temperature sets - one from the UK Met Office and the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), and two from the US, maintained by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) and the space agency Nasa.
Asked whether the controversy surrounding e-mails hacked from CRU could have any bearing on the results, Mr Jarraud replied that all three datasets showed the same result.
Vicky Pope from the UK Met Office made the same point: "The datasets are all independent, and they all show warming," she said.

Hmmm.....

Cheers!