A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

[OT] How science is not done



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #361  
Old September 15th 09, 01:50 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Peter Webb[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 927
Default 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  
Old September 15th 09, 11:33 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
yourmommycalled
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 227
Default 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  
Old September 16th 09, 01:29 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Peter Webb[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 927
Default 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  
Old September 16th 09, 04:55 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
yourmommycalled
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 227
Default 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  
Old September 16th 09, 09:09 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Peter Webb[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 927
Default 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  
Old September 17th 09, 03:30 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
yourmommycalled
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 227
Default 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  
Old September 17th 09, 01:15 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Peter Webb[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 927
Default 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  
Old September 17th 09, 11:19 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
yourmommycalled
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 227
Default 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  
Old September 18th 09, 06:22 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris.B[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,410
Default 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  
Old September 18th 09, 06:45 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Peter Webb[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 927
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 03:34 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 10:22 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.