|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#361
|
|||
|
|||
How science is not done
"yourmommycalled" wrote in message ... On Sep 13, 9:38 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote: "yourmommycalled" wrote in message ... On Sep 13, 6:54 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote: ____________________ Sorry, there was mo Once again the key graph if figure 1b on page 1432. As with the 1988 run the model matches observations VERY CLOSELY, again with differences due to the timing of events. http://logicalscience.com/skeptic_ar...re1_hansen05s-... ________________________ When were these "runs" done, exactly? The curve stops at about 2002. What part of the curve is actual prediction? You might also look at http://www.grida.no/publications/oth...limate/ipcc_ta... which are graphs of model runs with/without anthropogenic CO2 forcing and with/without natural CO2 forcing, they are rather telling. ________________________ This data was generated in 2001, but the "predictions" and comparison with experimental data finishes in the year 2000. I want predictions of a climate model compared to subsequent experimental data, this provides neither. Presumably somebody has bothered to check this, but as I keep saying, I cannot find any specific predictions of climate science compared to subsequent exprimental data, for the IPCC models or anything else. I would be grateful if you have data of this form; somebody must have thought to check if the models actually made valid predictions, it is fundamental to verifying a scientific theory. You might also want to look at figure 1 of Rahmstorf et al (2007) which compared 2001 IPCC projections of global temperature change (ie. various model predictions) with observations from HadCRUT and NASA GISS data. The models used for the TAR were developed in the mid-1990s. They’re not statistical models based on fitting observed data, they’re models based on the equations of thermodynamics and hydrodynamics. They weren’t “tuned” or updated using any observed climate data subsequent to 1990. Furthermore, it’s just irrational to claim (as some have suggested) that model developers would subsequently have used observations post-1990 to change their models. http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/rahmstorf.gif ____________________________________ Your text above says these are predictions made in 2001, but as far as I can see the graph claims they were made in 1990. Of course, its hard to tell, a legend would be nice. I see 5 different curves that look like predictions, and two sets of data that look like measurements, and most of the data points after 2002 seem to lie outside the 5 curves that are probably predictions. At this point I expect howls of denial and that something is wrong with the references or graph or something, which will only solidify the proof that you know nothing ________________________________ C'mon, graph has no legend, and its predictions don't seem to match what actually happened. This is however the first graph you have posted which provides temperature data for this decade. On this curve, it appears that 1998 was the hottest year since 1970, and the temperature has been dropping since 2004. If the curves were generated in 2001, as your text claims, then only 2001 - 2009 are actual predictions, and these seem to show the earth has cooled over this period. Clearly the model did not predict that. Did any climate science models? Just as I predicted you came up with non-arguments rather than admitting you are stupid and an ass. The first set of graphs were made from PREDICTIONS MADE IN 1988 as the paper from which the graph was taken and every other bit of documentation you were provided. I never claimed that the predictions were made in 2001 I said they were made and published in 1988. _____________________________ Yes you did. You said they were "figure 1 of Rahmstorf et al (2007) which compared 2001 IPCC projections of global temperature change (ie. various model predictions)". The graph has clear labels. The y-axis is LABELED AS the Mean Annual Temperature Change and ranges from -0.25 deg C to +1.5 deg C with tick marks every 0.25 deg C. The x-axis is LABELED in years from 1960 to 2020 with tick marks every 5 years. ________________________ None of the curves are labelled. From the easily understood and LABELED graph the temperature anomaly was 0.75 deg C in 1998 a year with an ANOMALOUSLY STRONG El Nino, however 2005 was warmer with an anomaly of 0.825 deg C Your claim that the predictions were made in 2001 is SIMPLY A BALD FACED LIE AND YOU HAVE BEEN CAUGHT LYING. ___________________________ You said "the figure... compared 2001 IPCC projections of global temperature change (ie. various model predictions)". As none of the curves are labelled, the graph itself doesn't say when the predictions were made. So were these predictions actually made in 1988, or in 2001 as you stated? Your claims temperatures are declining are the classic "cherry picking" argument made by those who are desperate. _____________________ Its the data you presented. Sorry if it doesn't agree with your model. I can't even see its cherry picking; the period 2002 to 2009 is the period of prediction (according to what you say above), I am looking at the whole period of actual prediction and all the experimental data you have provided. Even a simple linear regression through all the points made in the forecast shows warming since 1998. Even a 5 year running mean shows warming since 1998. _____________________ Running mean. Ha ha. That is just a way to modify the data to make earlier data points seem more significant, there is no justification for picking a running mean other than that gives you the answers you want. And talk about cherry picking! Why do you only pick 1998 to 2003 data when we have data to 2008 at least? Just as I predicted! I gave you papers to read, model source code, and model documentation. You refused to look at anything you were given and made up a whole collection of lies and denials. _________________________ I looked at every link. When someone else did your homework for you and GAVE EXACTLY WHAT YOU ASKED FOR YOU LIED YET AGAIN AND PROVED YOU CANN"T EVEN READ A GRAPH THAT A 6th GRADER COULD READ _______________________ So, these predictions made in 1988. What were they exactly? Have you got a link? How do the predictions of 1988 differ from the 2001 predictions that are actually provided? Can you supply some kind of lables for the different curves, so we know what they are and specifically whether they are 1988 predictions or 2001 IPCC predictions as you claimed? This is to document that you cannot or are unwilling to read anything that does not fit into your preconceived notions and that you are more than willing to ignore or lie From my post on September 13, 20067 at 11:01 am PLEASE NOTE THAT THE TEXT BELOW IS A CUT AND PASTE FROM THAT POST START QUOTE I doubt it I am sure that you will start get all in a flutter about how no the curves don't match, or some other specious argument. The reference paper is Hansen, J., I. Fung, A. Lacis, D. Rind, Lebedeff, R. Ruedy, G. Russell, and P. Stone, 1988: Global climate changes as forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies three-dimensional model. J. Geophys. Res., 93, 9341-9364, doi:10.1029/88JD00231. The key graph is figure 2 given on page 9345. In the text of the paper, the intermediate scenario (scenario B) is considered the likely to occur and it is the one that CLOSELY matches observations. The differences occur in time where the model assume volcanic eruptions would occur versus when the eruptions actually occurred. http://www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen06_fig2.jpg END QUOTE ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Let me ask you one more time. If this graph was prepared in 1988, how come it shows actual temperature measurements after 1988? And why doesn't it have a legend which explains what the curves are supposed to represent? And why are the curves so spectacularly wrong anyway? So you received exactly what you asked for. Rather than admit you were wrong you make up some sort of bull**** about no labels, only a for 2001-2009, ad nauseum. Now you post that a running mean modifies the data. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ That isn't exactly what I said. A running mean up until (say) the present weights earlier data more heavily; if for example it was 5 year running mean then 2009 appears in one running mean, 2008 in two running means, ... 2005 appears in 5 running means. They are comonly used to fudge findings where later results are less accurate. Of course, climate science is full of the these post-hoc manipulations. |
#362
|
|||
|
|||
How science is not done
On Sep 15, 7:50*am, "Peter Webb"
wrote: Let me ask you one more time. If this graph was prepared in 1988, how come it shows actual temperature measurements after 1988? And why doesn't it have a legend which explains what the curves are supposed to represent? And why are the curves so spectacularly wrong anyway? What is it that you do not understand? Are you really incapable of reading a simple post? As I have repeatedly posted over and over and over and over again the graph is from a paper published in 1988. The graph on page 9347 of the 1988 paper does not show observed temperatures after 1988. The 1988 paper is the prediction. Had you read anything on the page I linked you would learned that the graph in the link is the verification of the 1988 forecast with observed data as YOU DEMANDED. The link compares the 1988 forecast with observed data WHICH IS WHAT YOU DEMANDED. The forecasted rate of temperature increase for the scenario B was 0.24 +- 0.07 degrees per decade. If you use only WMO surface stations (no sampling over the ocean) the observed trend 0.25 +- 0.06 degrees per decade, while the land-ocean based samples give 0.21 +- 0.06. In simples terms the curves all fit inside the error bars. Everything you asked for is present you are simply incapable of reading or understanding anything that is presented in response to your questions |
#363
|
|||
|
|||
How science is not done
"yourmommycalled" wrote in message ... On Sep 15, 7:50 am, "Peter Webb" wrote: Let me ask you one more time. If this graph was prepared in 1988, how come it shows actual temperature measurements after 1988? And why doesn't it have a legend which explains what the curves are supposed to represent? And why are the curves so spectacularly wrong anyway? What is it that you do not understand? Are you really incapable of reading a simple post? As I have repeatedly posted over and over and over and over again the graph is from a paper published in 1988. ____________________________________ So you say. The "evidence" you have posted is a graph with many curves drawn on it, some labelled "scenario A", "Scenario B" etc. The graph does not say what these scenarios are or when they were published. The graph does not help identify the period of prediction, as it clearly includes "predictions" going back decades. Really, if AGW has strong experimental support, there must be something better on the internet than an unexplained bitmap of a graph. The graph on page 9347 of the 1988 paper does not show observed temperatures after 1988. The 1988 paper is the prediction. Had you read anything on the page I linked you would learned that the graph in the link is the verification of the 1988 forecast with observed data as YOU DEMANDED. ________________________________ The link you provided does not say or imply in any way that these were 1988 predictions. 1998 is not mentioned in any way; it is not specially labelled on the graph, there is simply NO stated connection between the graph you have posted and the year 1988. The link compares the 1988 forecast with observed data WHICH IS WHAT YOU DEMANDED. ______________________________ Again, so you say, but the graph certainly doesn't claim to be that. The forecasted rate of temperature increase for the scenario B was 0.24 +- 0.07 degrees per decade. If you use only WMO surface stations (no sampling over the ocean) the observed trend 0.25 +- 0.06 degrees per decade, while the land-ocean based samples give 0.21 +- 0.06. In simples terms the curves all fit inside the error bars. Everything you asked for is present you are simply incapable of reading or understanding anything that is presented in response to your questions ____________________________________ So was "Scenario B" for land temperatures or ocean temperature? Again, the graph is unlabelled, so it is impossible to say what these curves are supposed to be predictions of, and when they were made. Also, why Scenario "B" ? Are you just discounting scenarios "A" and "C" because they were wrong (were they?), ignoring two incorrect predictions on the graph but accepting the one you later found out best matched the data? Aren't you just cherry-picking the best curve, after you know what actually happened? |
#364
|
|||
|
|||
How science is not done
On Sep 15, 7:29*pm, "Peter Webb"
wrote: "yourmommycalled" wrote in message ... On Sep 15, 7:50 am, "Peter wrote: Let me ask you one more time. If this graph was prepared in 1988, how come it shows actual temperature measurements after 1988? And why doesn't it have a legend which explains what the curves are supposed to represent? And why are the curves so spectacularly wrong anyway? *What is it that you do not understand? Are you really incapable of reading a simple post? As I have repeatedly posted over and over and over and over again the graph is from a paper published in 1988. ____________________________________ So you say. The "evidence" you have posted is a graph with many curves drawn on it, some labelled "scenario A", "Scenario B" etc. The graph does not say what these scenarios are or when they were published. The graph does not help identify the period of prediction, as it clearly includes "predictions" going back decades. Really, if AGW has strong experimental support, there must be something better on the internet than an unexplained bitmap of a graph. *The graph on page 9347 of the 1988 paper does not show observed temperatures after 1988. The 1988 paper is the prediction. Had you read anything on the page I linked you would learned that the graph in the link is the verification of the 1988 forecast with observed data as YOU DEMANDED. ________________________________ The link you provided does not say or imply in any way that these were 1988 predictions. 1998 is not mentioned in any way; it is not specially labelled on the graph, there is simply NO stated connection between the graph you have posted and the year 1988. The link compares the 1988 forecast with observed data WHICH IS WHAT YOU DEMANDED. ______________________________ Again, so you say, but the graph certainly doesn't claim to be that. The forecasted rate of temperature increase for the scenario B was 0.24 +- 0.07 degrees per decade. If you use only WMO surface stations (no sampling over the ocean) the observed trend 0.25 +- 0.06 degrees per decade, while the land-ocean based samples give 0.21 +- 0.06. In simples terms the curves all fit inside the error bars. Everything you asked for is present you are simply incapable of reading or understanding anything that is presented in response to your questions ____________________________________ So was "Scenario B" for land temperatures or ocean temperature? Again, the graph is unlabelled, so it is impossible to say what these curves are supposed to be predictions of, and when they were made. Also, why Scenario "B" ? Are you just discounting scenarios "A" and "C" because they were wrong (were they?), ignoring two incorrect predictions on the graph but accepting the one you later found out best matched the data? Aren't you just cherry-picking the best curve, after you know what actually happened? Once again you are just proving the you are about as stupid as you can get and still have a functioning brain. Here is a remarkable concept that seems to help scientists around the world READ. Yes I know you cannot read, but at least you can ask some to read it to you. The predictions are on page 9347 of the 1988 paper The discussion of what scenarios A, B and C are and their importance have been the subject of so many web sites and posts that google reports 1.090,000 hits on that subject. In the original 1988 paper, three different scenarios were used A, B, and C. They consisted of hypothesised future concentrations of the main greenhouse gases – CO2, CH4, CFCs etc. together with a few scattered volcanic eruptions. The details varied for each scenario, but the net effect of all the changes was that Scenario A assumed exponential growth in greenhouse gases, Scenario B was roughly a linear increase in greenhouse gases, and Scenario C was similar to B, but had close to constant greenhouse gas concentrations from 2000 onwards. Scenario B and C had an ‘El Chichon’ sized volcanic eruption in 1995. Essentially, a high, middle and low estimate were chosen to bracket the set of possibilities. Hansen specifically stated that he thought the middle scenario (B) the “most plausible”. I didn't discount scenarios A and C, they are right there on the graph for everyone but you to see. The trouble with scenario A is that greenhouses DID NOT INCREASE EXPONENTIALLY. Scenario C didn't come true either WE CONTINUED TO INCREASE EMISSIONS AFTER 2000.SINCE THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED BY THOSE SCENARIOS DID NOT OCCUR BY DEFINITION THOSE FORECASTS WILL BE WRONG. Once again had you read anything I pointed you at rather than shooting your mouth off, you would have read this and I would not be posting the same response reworded at a lower and lower level each time. Once again you cann't read what was posted. I gave you what model scenario B predicted in 1988 as global mean temperature rate of increase (0.24 +- 0.07 degrees per decade.) compared to the two common measures of observed global mean temperature rate of increase: A land only (0.25 +- 0.06 degrees per decade) and a land/ocean (0.21 +- 0.06). REGARDLESS OF WHICH SET OF OBSERVATIONS USED THE FORECAST CREATED IN 1988 MATCHES THE OBSERVED RATE OF INCREASE OF GLOBAL MEAN TEMPERATURE TO WITHIN THE ERROR BARS. As I predicted you continue to blather about things that don't exist rather than admit you know nothing. |
#365
|
|||
|
|||
How science is not done
Once again you are just proving the you are about as stupid as you can get and still have a functioning brain. Here is a remarkable concept that seems to help scientists around the world READ. Yes I know you cannot read, but at least you can ask some to read it to you. The predictions are on page 9347 of the 1988 paper ______________________________ So this paper that proves that AGW makes correct predictions is not available on the internet, and nor is any other evidence of correct predictions? The discussion of what scenarios A, B and C are and their importance have been the subject of so many web sites and posts that google reports 1.090,000 hits on that subject. ____________________________ But alas you cannot provide a link to any sites that show the specific predictions of a climate model and the subsequent experimental results, except for a graph that does not say when the predictions were made. In the original 1988 paper, three different scenarios were used A, B, and C. They consisted of hypothesised future concentrations of the main greenhouse gases – CO2, CH4, CFCs etc. together with a few scattered volcanic eruptions. The details varied for each scenario, but the net effect of all the changes was that Scenario A assumed exponential growth in greenhouse gases, Scenario B was roughly a linear increase in greenhouse gases, and Scenario C was similar to B, but had close to constant greenhouse gas concentrations from 2000 onwards. ____________________________ Now I know you are making things up. An "exponential growth" can be faster or slower than linear growth over limitted time periods. For example, T = 10000x grows much faster than T = e^(x/10000) for x10000. No scientist would assume that exponential means faster than linear over a limitted period. Scenario B and C had an ‘El Chichon’ sized volcanic eruption in 1995. Essentially, a high, middle and low estimate were chosen to bracket the set of possibilities. Hansen specifically stated that he thought the middle scenario (B) the “most plausible”. I didn't discount scenarios A and C, they are right there on the graph for everyone but you to see. The trouble with scenario A is that greenhouses DID NOT INCREASE EXPONENTIALLY. Scenario C didn't come true either WE CONTINUED TO INCREASE EMISSIONS AFTER 2000.SINCE THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED BY THOSE SCENARIOS DID NOT OCCUR BY DEFINITION THOSE FORECASTS WILL BE WRONG. Once again had you read anything I pointed you at rather than shooting your mouth off, you would have read this and I would not be posting the same response reworded at a lower and lower level each time. _________________________________ You did not give me a pointer to any of this. In fact, I suspect you are making some of it up. Once again you cann't read what was posted. ____________________________ You mean, what you claimed? I certainly read the web links you provided; alas, they did not explain what the Scenarios were, when they were made, or what they specifically claimed. I gave you what model scenario B predicted in 1988 as global mean temperature rate of increase (0.24 +- 0.07 degrees per decade.) compared to the two common measures of observed global mean temperature rate of increase: A land only (0.25 +- 0.06 degrees per decade) and a land/ocean (0.21 +- 0.06). REGARDLESS OF WHICH SET OF OBSERVATIONS USED THE FORECAST CREATED IN 1988 MATCHES THE OBSERVED RATE OF INCREASE OF GLOBAL MEAN TEMPERATURE TO WITHIN THE ERROR BARS. __________________________ Error bars? I didn't see any error bars at all in what you have posted. Error bars in the predictions or in the experimental results? Are you just making this up? As I predicted you continue to blather about things that don't exist rather than admit you know nothing. ____________________________ I must admit that I am very concerned about things that don't exist, specifically evidence for AGW. |
#366
|
|||
|
|||
How science is not done
On Sep 16, 3:09*am, "Peter Webb"
wrote: Once again you are just proving the you are about as stupid as you can get and still have a functioning brain. Here is a remarkable concept that seems to help scientists around the world READ. Yes I know you cannot read, but at least you can ask some to read it to you. The predictions are on page 9347 of the 1988 paper ______________________________ So this paper that proves that AGW makes correct predictions is not available on the internet, and nor is any other evidence of correct predictions? *The discussion of what scenarios A, B and C are and their importance have been the subject of so many web sites and posts that google reports 1.090,000 hits on that subject. ____________________________ But alas you cannot provide a link to any sites that show the specific predictions of a climate model and the subsequent experimental results, except for a graph that does not say when the predictions were made. In the original 1988 paper, three different scenarios were used A, B, and C. They consisted of hypothesised future concentrations of the main greenhouse gases – CO2, CH4, CFCs etc. together with a few scattered volcanic eruptions. The details varied for each scenario, but the net effect of all the changes was that Scenario A assumed exponential growth in greenhouse gases, Scenario B was roughly a linear increase in greenhouse gases, and Scenario C was similar to B, but had close to constant greenhouse gas concentrations *from 2000 onwards. ____________________________ Now I know you are making things up. An "exponential growth" can be faster or slower than linear growth over limitted time periods. For example, T = 10000x grows much faster than T = e^(x/10000) for x10000. No scientist would assume that exponential means faster than linear over a limitted period. Scenario B and C had an ‘El Chichon’ sized volcanic eruption in 1995. Essentially, a high, middle and low estimate were chosen to bracket the set of possibilities. Hansen specifically stated that he thought the middle scenario (B) the “most plausible”. *I didn't discount scenarios A and C, they are right there on the graph for everyone but you to see. The trouble with scenario A is that greenhouses DID NOT INCREASE EXPONENTIALLY. Scenario C didn't come true either WE CONTINUED TO INCREASE EMISSIONS AFTER 2000.SINCE THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED BY THOSE SCENARIOS DID NOT OCCUR BY DEFINITION THOSE FORECASTS WILL BE WRONG. Once again had you read anything I pointed you at rather than shooting your mouth off, you would have read this and I would not be posting the same response reworded at a lower and lower level each time. _________________________________ You did not give me a pointer to any of this. In fact, I suspect you are making some of it up. Once again you cann't read what was posted. ____________________________ You mean, what you claimed? I certainly read the web links you provided; alas, they did not explain what the Scenarios were, when they were made, or what they specifically claimed. I gave you what model scenario B predicted in 1988 as global mean temperature rate of increase *(0.24 +- 0.07 degrees per decade.) compared *to the two common measures of observed *global mean temperature rate of increase: A land only (0.25 +- 0.06 degrees per decade) and a land/ocean (0.21 +- 0.06). *REGARDLESS OF WHICH SET OF OBSERVATIONS USED THE FORECAST CREATED IN 1988 MATCHES THE OBSERVED RATE OF INCREASE OF GLOBAL MEAN TEMPERATURE TO WITHIN THE ERROR BARS. __________________________ Error bars? I didn't see any error bars at all in what you have posted. Error bars in the predictions or in the experimental results? Are you just making this up? As I predicted you continue to blather about things that don't exist rather than admit you know nothing. ____________________________ I must admit that I am very concerned about things that don't exist, specifically evidence for AGW. I am concerned that the drugs you are taking aren't helping you. You clearly need to see your physician about adjusting your dosages. Let's see I said that you need to go to page 9347 of Hansen, J., I. Fung, A. Lacis, D. Rind, Lebedeff, R. Ruedy, G. Russell, and P. Stone, 1988: Global climate changes as forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies three-dimensional model. J. Geophys. Res., 93, 9341-9364, doi:10.1029/88JD00231. Where you would find the prediction from 1988 You would also find the exact details about each scenario Exactly what don't you understand about that? Document clearly what your objections to the labeling, careful descriptions of each scenario and the what is wrong with the an error of +-0.07 degree C about the graphed values for scenario B are. Since the paper was published in 1988 and the graph is PREDICTION of the mean global temperature. Please document at what page number and line number where you find something you disagree with. At the link I posted the OBSERVED GLOBAL MEAN TEMPERATURE IS OVERLAID ON THE PREDICTION MADE IN 1988 AS YOU REQUESTED. I ALSO SAID THE SOURCE OF THE OBSERVED GLOBAL MEAN TEMPERATURE HAD AN ERROR OF +- 0.06 degree C about the graphed values. So there we have it folks, Webb got what he asked for and now he lies about it. Strangest think when I worked with the scientists at the Bureau of Meteorology in Darwin I thought the Australians were on a whole better educated than most. Webb proves there is always an exception to the rule. |
#367
|
|||
|
|||
How science is not done
I am concerned that the drugs you are taking aren't helping you. You clearly need to see your physician about adjusting your dosages. Let's see I said that you need to go to page 9347 of Hansen, J., I. Fung, A. Lacis, D. Rind, Lebedeff, R. Ruedy, G. Russell, and P. Stone, 1988: Global climate changes as forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies three-dimensional model. J. Geophys. Res., 93, 9341-9364, doi:10.1029/88JD00231. Where you would find the prediction from 1988 You would also find the exact details about each scenario Exactly what don't you understand about that? ____________________________________ I don't understand why the only evidence you can find is in a hard copy journal, and not on the internet. If it is because there are no details of successful predictions of climate science on the internet, I really have to ask you why this is. Its not like it isn't a highly contentious and important topic, or that climate scientists don't have powerful enough computers to host a web page justifying their claim to being a "science". Document clearly what your objections to the labeling, careful descriptions of each scenario and the what is wrong with the an error of +-0.07 degree C about the graphed values for scenario B are. Since the paper was published in 1988 and the graph is PREDICTION of the mean global temperature. Please document at what page number and line number where you find something you disagree with. At the link I posted the OBSERVED GLOBAL MEAN TEMPERATURE IS OVERLAID ON THE PREDICTION MADE IN 1988 AS YOU REQUESTED. I ALSO SAID THE SOURCE OF THE OBSERVED GLOBAL MEAN TEMPERATURE HAD AN ERROR OF +- 0.06 degree C about the graphed values. ________________________________________ I understand the game. I can ask you things about the evidence, and you will tell me whatever you like, because I have no practical way of checking its true. Really, this secret-evidence-I-have-which-is-not-available-on-the-internet schlock is as old as Usenet. So there we have it folks, Webb got what he asked for and now he lies about it. Strangest think when I worked with the scientists at the Bureau of Meteorology in Darwin I thought the Australians were on a whole better educated than most. Webb proves there is always an exception to the rule. __________________________________ No, most of us are ****wits. |
#368
|
|||
|
|||
How science is not done
On Sep 17, 7:15*am, "Peter Webb"
wrote: I am concerned that the drugs you are taking aren't helping you. You clearly need to see your physician about adjusting your dosages. Let's see I said that you need to go to page 9347 of Hansen, J., I. Fung, A. Lacis, D. Rind, Lebedeff, R. Ruedy, G. Russell, and P. Stone, 1988: Global climate changes as forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies three-dimensional model. J. Geophys. Res., 93, 9341-9364, doi:10.1029/88JD00231. Where you would find the prediction from 1988 You would also find the exact details *about each scenario Exactly what don't you understand about that? ____________________________________ I don't understand why the only evidence you can find is in a hard copy journal, and not on the internet. If it is because there are no details of successful predictions of climate science on the internet, I really have to ask you why this is. Its not like it isn't a highly contentious and important topic, or that climate scientists don't have powerful enough computers to host a web page justifying their claim to being a "science". Document clearly what your objections to the labeling, careful descriptions of each scenario and the what is wrong with the an error of +-0.07 degree C about the graphed values for *scenario B are. Since the paper was published in 1988 and the graph is PREDICTION of the mean global temperature. Please document at what page number and line number where you find something you disagree with. At the link I posted the OBSERVED GLOBAL MEAN TEMPERATURE IS OVERLAID ON THE PREDICTION MADE IN 1988 AS YOU REQUESTED. I ALSO SAID THE SOURCE OF THE OBSERVED GLOBAL MEAN TEMPERATURE HAD AN ERROR OF +- 0.06 degree C about the graphed values. ________________________________________ I understand the game. I can ask you things about the evidence, and you will tell me whatever you like, because I have no practical way of checking its true. Really, this secret-evidence-I-have-which-is-not-available-on-the-internet schlock is as old as Usenet. So there we have it folks, Webb got what he asked for and now he lies about it. Strangest think when I worked with the scientists at the Bureau of Meteorology in Darwin I thought the Australians were on a whole better educated than most. Webb proves there is always an exception to the rule. __________________________________ No, most of us are ****wits. Oh indeed you are a ****wit. So you want me to post the entire paper here in sci.astro.amateur rather than you going to the web and getting the paper your self. It is on the web, but as you yourself pointed out you are a ****wit and have not got a clue as to how to use google or yahoo or the web to download your own personal copy of the paper in your choice of formats (MS-Word, RTF, PDF or just plain ascii) to read at your leisure. The one thing I find interesting is that simple google search on the authors and title produces over 14 million hits with plenty of descriptions and objections. You cann't even do a google search, but you claim "I understand the game. I can ask you things about the evidence, and you will tell me whatever you like, because I have no practical way of checking its true. Really, this secret-evidence-I-have-which-is-not-available-on-the-internet schlock is as old as Usenet.' Regardless of your lack of effort the material is available on the internet and your post is a really lame attempt to dig yourself out of this hole you have dug for yourself. |
#369
|
|||
|
|||
How science is not done
On Sep 18, 6:52*am, "Peter Webb"
wrote: You haven't got a nice, simple table which provides the predictions of a climate model, the date the predictions were made, and the subsequent experimental data? The sort of thing that scientists use all the time to test whether predictions of a model match experiment? PW, if you are going to troll quite so childishly could you at least learn how to quote and prune that which you do quote? Or at least use a different coloured crayon so we can see where you have scribbled over "mommy's" text. Thankyou. |
#370
|
|||
|
|||
How science is not done
"Chris.B" wrote in message ... On Sep 18, 6:52 am, "Peter Webb" wrote: You haven't got a nice, simple table which provides the predictions of a climate model, the date the predictions were made, and the subsequent experimental data? The sort of thing that scientists use all the time to test whether predictions of a model match experiment? PW, if you are going to troll quite so childishly could you at least learn how to quote and prune that which you do quote? Or at least use a different coloured crayon so we can see where you have scribbled over "mommy's" text. Thankyou. ___________________________ So I guess you can't help me with my request, either. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
National Science Foundation Selects Homestake Gold Mine as DeepUnderground Science Site (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | July 11th 07 05:37 PM |
National Science Foundation Selects Homestake Gold Mine as Deep Underground Science Site (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee[_1_] | News | 0 | July 11th 07 04:48 PM |
Mainstream Science Peers Still Trying To Catch Up With Maverick AdvancedTheoretical Science Officers And Researchers | nightbat | Misc | 4 | November 11th 06 02:34 AM |
Top Science Xprize For The Best and Science Team Officers Is In Order | nightbat | Misc | 8 | September 8th 06 09:50 AM |
Science Names Mars Rover Mission Science Program as Breakthrough of the Year | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | December 16th 04 09:22 PM |