[OT] 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.