US wants to privatize Space Station

On Feb/15/2018 at 4:45 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote:

On Feb/14/2018 at 8:44 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Jeff Findley wrote:

In article ,
says...

JF Mezei wrote:

There are more cuts elsewhe (I like the "constrained budget" for a
budget that has unlimited spending for other stuff Trump likes).

ELIMINATION: FIVE EARTH SCIENCE MISSIONS
National Aeronautics and Space Administration


This is the danger of science allowing itself to be politicized. NASA
Earth Sciences got involved in the political snarl of 'human caused
climate change'. That was fine until the other party took power...

NASA Earth Sciences got involved in collecting and analyzing data, just
like other climate scientists the world over. The fact that the data
doesn't fit the world view of one party in the US doesn't mean the data
is wrong. You can make up your own opinions, but you can't make up your
own data.


No, NASA Earth Sciences got involved in pushing a particular view on
climate change and now they're reaping the 'rewards'. The 'data'
doesn't support a cause. If it did, all those failed predictions over
the years would have come true. They haven't.

I know mere facts won't convince you,


Well, gee, **** you, too.


but if you look at the
predictions, for instance the 1992 IPCC report
https://tinyurl.com/ycns5fw4
(
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/1992%...ull_report.pdf
)
at page 63, item 3.
« Based on current model results, we predict:
« under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A)
« emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of
« global-mean temperature during the next century of
« about 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of
« 0.2°C to 0.5°C per decade); this is greater than
« that seen over the past 10,000 years. This will result
« in a likely increase in global-mean temperature of about
« 1°C above the present value by 2025 and 3°C before the
« end of the next century. The rise will not be steady
« because of the influence of other factors; »

Which can be compared to the graph in:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fe...ecadaltemp.php

You will see that observations fit predictions.


So they got one thing close in a single report (and a couple of
decades is hardly a track record, given the variability of the data in
any case), with no demonstration of causality at all.

The demonstration of causality is quite simple and has been known since
the 19th century. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. If you add greenhouse gases
in the atmosphere the temperature rises.


Alain Fournier

Alain Fournier wrote:

On Feb/15/2018 at 4:45 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote:

On Feb/14/2018 at 8:44 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Jeff Findley wrote:

In article ,
says...

JF Mezei wrote:

There are more cuts elsewhe (I like the "constrained budget" for a
budget that has unlimited spending for other stuff Trump likes).

ELIMINATION: FIVE EARTH SCIENCE MISSIONS
National Aeronautics and Space Administration


This is the danger of science allowing itself to be politicized. NASA
Earth Sciences got involved in the political snarl of 'human caused
climate change'. That was fine until the other party took power...

NASA Earth Sciences got involved in collecting and analyzing data, just
like other climate scientists the world over. The fact that the data
doesn't fit the world view of one party in the US doesn't mean the data
is wrong. You can make up your own opinions, but you can't make up your
own data.


No, NASA Earth Sciences got involved in pushing a particular view on
climate change and now they're reaping the 'rewards'. The 'data'
doesn't support a cause. If it did, all those failed predictions over
the years would have come true. They haven't.

I know mere facts won't convince you,


Well, gee, **** you, too.


but if you look at the
predictions, for instance the 1992 IPCC report
https://tinyurl.com/ycns5fw4
(
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/1992%...ull_report.pdf
)
at page 63, item 3.
« Based on current model results, we predict:
« under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A)
« emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of
« global-mean temperature during the next century of
« about 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of
« 0.2°C to 0.5°C per decade); this is greater than
« that seen over the past 10,000 years. This will result
« in a likely increase in global-mean temperature of about
« 1°C above the present value by 2025 and 3°C before the
« end of the next century. The rise will not be steady
« because of the influence of other factors; »

Which can be compared to the graph in:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fe...ecadaltemp.php

You will see that observations fit predictions.


So they got one thing close in a single report (and a couple of
decades is hardly a track record, given the variability of the data in
any case), with no demonstration of causality at all.

The demonstration of causality is quite simple and has been known since
the 19th century. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. If you add greenhouse gases
in the atmosphere the temperature rises.


There's many a slip between theory and the real world. When you look
at the long term historical record, what you find is that CO2
concentration tends to LAG temperature change, which is not what you
would expect if CO2 is a 'cause'. Global Warmists like to ignore that
and only focus on the period of recent history that their models are
tuned to. Even then, there's a four decade period right in the middle
where things got cooler instead of warmer.

But I know facts won't sway you because you're convinced it's all
"settled".


--
"Now I'm hiding in Honduras.
I'm a desperate man.
Send lawyers, guns and money.
The **** has hit the fan."
-- "Send Lawyers, Guns, and Money", Warren Zevon

On Feb/17/2018 at 4:50 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote:

On Feb/15/2018 at 4:45 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote:

On Feb/14/2018 at 8:44 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Jeff Findley wrote:

In article ,
says...

JF Mezei wrote:

There are more cuts elsewhe (I like the "constrained budget" for a
budget that has unlimited spending for other stuff Trump likes).

ELIMINATION: FIVE EARTH SCIENCE MISSIONS
National Aeronautics and Space Administration


This is the danger of science allowing itself to be politicized. NASA
Earth Sciences got involved in the political snarl of 'human caused
climate change'. That was fine until the other party took power...

NASA Earth Sciences got involved in collecting and analyzing data, just
like other climate scientists the world over. The fact that the data
doesn't fit the world view of one party in the US doesn't mean the data
is wrong. You can make up your own opinions, but you can't make up your
own data.


No, NASA Earth Sciences got involved in pushing a particular view on
climate change and now they're reaping the 'rewards'. The 'data'
doesn't support a cause. If it did, all those failed predictions over
the years would have come true. They haven't.

I know mere facts won't convince you,


Well, gee, **** you, too.


but if you look at the
predictions, for instance the 1992 IPCC report
https://tinyurl.com/ycns5fw4
(
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/1992%...ull_report.pdf
)
at page 63, item 3.
« Based on current model results, we predict:
« under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A)
« emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of
« global-mean temperature during the next century of
« about 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of
« 0.2°C to 0.5°C per decade); this is greater than
« that seen over the past 10,000 years. This will result
« in a likely increase in global-mean temperature of about
« 1°C above the present value by 2025 and 3°C before the
« end of the next century. The rise will not be steady
« because of the influence of other factors; »

Which can be compared to the graph in:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fe...ecadaltemp.php

You will see that observations fit predictions.


So they got one thing close in a single report (and a couple of
decades is hardly a track record, given the variability of the data in
any case), with no demonstration of causality at all.

The demonstration of causality is quite simple and has been known since
the 19th century. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. If you add greenhouse gases
in the atmosphere the temperature rises.


There's many a slip between theory and the real world. When you look
at the long term historical record, what you find is that CO2
concentration tends to LAG temperature change, which is not what you
would expect if CO2 is a 'cause'.

The lag is very short. It is called feedback loops. Temperature rises
for one reason or another, this causes CO2 to be released from various
sources, which causes the temperature to rise more.

Global Warmists like to ignore that
and only focus on the period of recent history that their models are
tuned to. Even then, there's a four decade period right in the middle
where things got cooler instead of warmer.

The over all trend still follows what science says it should. CO2 is
a greenhouse gas. When you put more CO2 in the atmosphere you should
get rising temperature. And that is what we are seeing.

But I know facts won't sway you because you're convinced it's all
"settled".

I have no problems with facts.


Alain Fournier

Alain Fournier wrote:

On Feb/17/2018 at 4:50 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote:

On Feb/15/2018 at 4:45 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote:

On Feb/14/2018 at 8:44 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Jeff Findley wrote:

In article ,
says...

JF Mezei wrote:

There are more cuts elsewhe (I like the "constrained budget" for a
budget that has unlimited spending for other stuff Trump likes).

ELIMINATION: FIVE EARTH SCIENCE MISSIONS
National Aeronautics and Space Administration


This is the danger of science allowing itself to be politicized. NASA
Earth Sciences got involved in the political snarl of 'human caused
climate change'. That was fine until the other party took power...

NASA Earth Sciences got involved in collecting and analyzing data, just
like other climate scientists the world over. The fact that the data
doesn't fit the world view of one party in the US doesn't mean the data
is wrong. You can make up your own opinions, but you can't make up your
own data.


No, NASA Earth Sciences got involved in pushing a particular view on
climate change and now they're reaping the 'rewards'. The 'data'
doesn't support a cause. If it did, all those failed predictions over
the years would have come true. They haven't.

I know mere facts won't convince you,


Well, gee, **** you, too.


but if you look at the
predictions, for instance the 1992 IPCC report
https://tinyurl.com/ycns5fw4
(
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/1992%...ull_report.pdf
)
at page 63, item 3.
« Based on current model results, we predict:
« under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A)
« emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of
« global-mean temperature during the next century of
« about 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of
« 0.2°C to 0.5°C per decade); this is greater than
« that seen over the past 10,000 years. This will result
« in a likely increase in global-mean temperature of about
« 1°C above the present value by 2025 and 3°C before the
« end of the next century. The rise will not be steady
« because of the influence of other factors; »

Which can be compared to the graph in:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fe...ecadaltemp.php

You will see that observations fit predictions.


So they got one thing close in a single report (and a couple of
decades is hardly a track record, given the variability of the data in
any case), with no demonstration of causality at all.

The demonstration of causality is quite simple and has been known since
the 19th century. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. If you add greenhouse gases
in the atmosphere the temperature rises.


There's many a slip between theory and the real world. When you look
at the long term historical record, what you find is that CO2
concentration tends to LAG temperature change, which is not what you
would expect if CO2 is a 'cause'.


The lag is very short. It is called feedback loops. Temperature rises
for one reason or another, this causes CO2 to be released from various
sources, which causes the temperature to rise more.


So temperature magically rises and falls (that 'lag' is on both sides)
and CO2 follows along and you call that 'causality'? That's like
saying that being distracted tomorrow caused your traffic accident
today.



Global Warmists like to ignore that
and only focus on the period of recent history that their models are
tuned to. Even then, there's a four decade period right in the middle
where things got cooler instead of warmer.


The over all trend still follows what science says it should. CO2 is
a greenhouse gas. When you put more CO2 in the atmosphere you should
get rising temperature. And that is what we are seeing.


Except it's not what we saw in the 50's-80's. What we saw then was
increasing CO2 and decreasing temperature.



But I know facts won't sway you because you're convinced it's all
"settled".


I have no problems with facts.


Obviously not. You just ignore the ones you don't like.


--
"It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point,
somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me....
I am the law."
-- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer

On Feb/17/2018 at 10:09 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote:

On Feb/17/2018 at 4:50 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote:

On Feb/15/2018 at 4:45 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote:

On Feb/14/2018 at 8:44 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Jeff Findley wrote:

In article ,
says...

JF Mezei wrote:

There are more cuts elsewhe (I like the "constrained budget" for a
budget that has unlimited spending for other stuff Trump likes).

ELIMINATION: FIVE EARTH SCIENCE MISSIONS
National Aeronautics and Space Administration


This is the danger of science allowing itself to be politicized. NASA
Earth Sciences got involved in the political snarl of 'human caused
climate change'. That was fine until the other party took power...

NASA Earth Sciences got involved in collecting and analyzing data, just
like other climate scientists the world over. The fact that the data
doesn't fit the world view of one party in the US doesn't mean the data
is wrong. You can make up your own opinions, but you can't make up your
own data.


No, NASA Earth Sciences got involved in pushing a particular view on
climate change and now they're reaping the 'rewards'. The 'data'
doesn't support a cause. If it did, all those failed predictions over
the years would have come true. They haven't.

I know mere facts won't convince you,


Well, gee, **** you, too.


but if you look at the
predictions, for instance the 1992 IPCC report
https://tinyurl.com/ycns5fw4
(
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/1992%...ull_report.pdf
)
at page 63, item 3.
« Based on current model results, we predict:
« under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A)
« emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of
« global-mean temperature during the next century of
« about 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of
« 0.2°C to 0.5°C per decade); this is greater than
« that seen over the past 10,000 years. This will result
« in a likely increase in global-mean temperature of about
« 1°C above the present value by 2025 and 3°C before the
« end of the next century. The rise will not be steady
« because of the influence of other factors; »

Which can be compared to the graph in:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fe...ecadaltemp.php

You will see that observations fit predictions.


So they got one thing close in a single report (and a couple of
decades is hardly a track record, given the variability of the data in
any case), with no demonstration of causality at all.

The demonstration of causality is quite simple and has been known since
the 19th century. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. If you add greenhouse gases
in the atmosphere the temperature rises.


There's many a slip between theory and the real world. When you look
at the long term historical record, what you find is that CO2
concentration tends to LAG temperature change, which is not what you
would expect if CO2 is a 'cause'.


The lag is very short. It is called feedback loops. Temperature rises
for one reason or another, this causes CO2 to be released from various
sources, which causes the temperature to rise more.


So temperature magically rises and falls (that 'lag' is on both sides)
and CO2 follows along and you call that 'causality'? That's like
saying that being distracted tomorrow caused your traffic accident
today.

No that is not what I call causality. CO2 has been measured in the
lab to be a greenhouse gas. We know that adding CO2 in the atmosphere
will cause increases in temperature because of that. That is the
causality part. What you were describing above is just the correlation
part. Correlation and causality are two different things.

Global Warmists like to ignore that
and only focus on the period of recent history that their models are
tuned to. Even then, there's a four decade period right in the middle
where things got cooler instead of warmer.


The over all trend still follows what science says it should. CO2 is
a greenhouse gas. When you put more CO2 in the atmosphere you should
get rising temperature. And that is what we are seeing.


Except it's not what we saw in the 50's-80's. What we saw then was
increasing CO2 and decreasing temperature.

If you pick and choose your data you can see anything. If you look
at all the data, you see that the temperature trend follows what
the science says it should do.

But I know facts won't sway you because you're convinced it's all
"settled".


I have no problems with facts.


Obviously not. You just ignore the ones you don't like.

Which fact am I ignoring?


Alain Fournier

Alain Fournier wrote:

On Feb/17/2018 at 10:09 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote:

On Feb/17/2018 at 4:50 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote:

On Feb/15/2018 at 4:45 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote:

On Feb/14/2018 at 8:44 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Jeff Findley wrote:

In article ,
says...

JF Mezei wrote:

There are more cuts elsewhe (I like the "constrained budget" for a
budget that has unlimited spending for other stuff Trump likes).

ELIMINATION: FIVE EARTH SCIENCE MISSIONS
National Aeronautics and Space Administration


This is the danger of science allowing itself to be politicized. NASA
Earth Sciences got involved in the political snarl of 'human caused
climate change'. That was fine until the other party took power...

NASA Earth Sciences got involved in collecting and analyzing data, just
like other climate scientists the world over. The fact that the data
doesn't fit the world view of one party in the US doesn't mean the data
is wrong. You can make up your own opinions, but you can't make up your
own data.


No, NASA Earth Sciences got involved in pushing a particular view on
climate change and now they're reaping the 'rewards'. The 'data'
doesn't support a cause. If it did, all those failed predictions over
the years would have come true. They haven't.

I know mere facts won't convince you,


Well, gee, **** you, too.


but if you look at the
predictions, for instance the 1992 IPCC report
https://tinyurl.com/ycns5fw4
(
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/1992%...ull_report.pdf
)
at page 63, item 3.
« Based on current model results, we predict:
« under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A)
« emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of
« global-mean temperature during the next century of
« about 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of
« 0.2°C to 0.5°C per decade); this is greater than
« that seen over the past 10,000 years. This will result
« in a likely increase in global-mean temperature of about
« 1°C above the present value by 2025 and 3°C before the
« end of the next century. The rise will not be steady
« because of the influence of other factors; »

Which can be compared to the graph in:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fe...ecadaltemp.php

You will see that observations fit predictions.


So they got one thing close in a single report (and a couple of
decades is hardly a track record, given the variability of the data in
any case), with no demonstration of causality at all.

The demonstration of causality is quite simple and has been known since
the 19th century. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. If you add greenhouse gases
in the atmosphere the temperature rises.


There's many a slip between theory and the real world. When you look
at the long term historical record, what you find is that CO2
concentration tends to LAG temperature change, which is not what you
would expect if CO2 is a 'cause'.


The lag is very short. It is called feedback loops. Temperature rises
for one reason or another, this causes CO2 to be released from various
sources, which causes the temperature to rise more.


So temperature magically rises and falls (that 'lag' is on both sides)
and CO2 follows along and you call that 'causality'? That's like
saying that being distracted tomorrow caused your traffic accident
today.


No that is not what I call causality. CO2 has been measured in the
lab to be a greenhouse gas. We know that adding CO2 in the atmosphere
will cause increases in temperature because of that. That is the
causality part. What you were describing above is just the correlation
part. Correlation and causality are two different things.


True, but while correlation does not necessarily imply causality,
causality damned well has to show correlation.

Global Warmists like to ignore that
and only focus on the period of recent history that their models are
tuned to. Even then, there's a four decade period right in the middle
where things got cooler instead of warmer.


The over all trend still follows what science says it should. CO2 is
a greenhouse gas. When you put more CO2 in the atmosphere you should
get rising temperature. And that is what we are seeing.


Except it's not what we saw in the 50's-80's. What we saw then was
increasing CO2 and decreasing temperature.

If you pick and choose your data you can see anything. If you look
at all the data, you see that the temperature trend follows what
the science says it should do.


For the interval over which the models are tuned. Now go look a
half-interval outside that. Does the model accurately predict those
past conditions? Not that I'm aware of

But I know facts won't sway you because you're convinced it's all
"settled".


I have no problems with facts.


Obviously not. You just ignore the ones you don't like.

Which fact am I ignoring?


Oh, 1947-1987, CO2 concentration changes LAGGING temperature changes
rather than leading them, the 'hockey stick', ...

If the data don't fit your theory, adjust the data. And yes, that's
what's been done and some people got in a bit of hot water for it.


--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
live in the real world."
-- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden

On Feb/17/2018 at 1:29 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote:

On Feb/17/2018 at 10:09 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote:

On Feb/17/2018 at 4:50 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote:

On Feb/15/2018 at 4:45 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote:

On Feb/14/2018 at 8:44 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Jeff Findley wrote:

In article ,
says...

JF Mezei wrote:

There are more cuts elsewhe (I like the "constrained budget" for a
budget that has unlimited spending for other stuff Trump likes).

ELIMINATION: FIVE EARTH SCIENCE MISSIONS
National Aeronautics and Space Administration


This is the danger of science allowing itself to be politicized. NASA
Earth Sciences got involved in the political snarl of 'human caused
climate change'. That was fine until the other party took power...

NASA Earth Sciences got involved in collecting and analyzing data, just
like other climate scientists the world over. The fact that the data
doesn't fit the world view of one party in the US doesn't mean the data
is wrong. You can make up your own opinions, but you can't make up your
own data.


No, NASA Earth Sciences got involved in pushing a particular view on
climate change and now they're reaping the 'rewards'. The 'data'
doesn't support a cause. If it did, all those failed predictions over
the years would have come true. They haven't.

I know mere facts won't convince you,


Well, gee, **** you, too.


but if you look at the
predictions, for instance the 1992 IPCC report
https://tinyurl.com/ycns5fw4
(
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/1992%...ull_report.pdf
)
at page 63, item 3.
« Based on current model results, we predict:
« under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A)
« emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of
« global-mean temperature during the next century of
« about 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of
« 0.2°C to 0.5°C per decade); this is greater than
« that seen over the past 10,000 years. This will result
« in a likely increase in global-mean temperature of about
« 1°C above the present value by 2025 and 3°C before the
« end of the next century. The rise will not be steady
« because of the influence of other factors; »

Which can be compared to the graph in:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fe...ecadaltemp.php

You will see that observations fit predictions.


So they got one thing close in a single report (and a couple of
decades is hardly a track record, given the variability of the data in
any case), with no demonstration of causality at all.

The demonstration of causality is quite simple and has been known since
the 19th century. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. If you add greenhouse gases
in the atmosphere the temperature rises.


There's many a slip between theory and the real world. When you look
at the long term historical record, what you find is that CO2
concentration tends to LAG temperature change, which is not what you
would expect if CO2 is a 'cause'.


The lag is very short. It is called feedback loops. Temperature rises
for one reason or another, this causes CO2 to be released from various
sources, which causes the temperature to rise more.


So temperature magically rises and falls (that 'lag' is on both sides)
and CO2 follows along and you call that 'causality'? That's like
saying that being distracted tomorrow caused your traffic accident
today.


No that is not what I call causality. CO2 has been measured in the
lab to be a greenhouse gas. We know that adding CO2 in the atmosphere
will cause increases in temperature because of that. That is the
causality part. What you were describing above is just the correlation
part. Correlation and causality are two different things.


True, but while correlation does not necessarily imply causality,
causality damned well has to show correlation.

Not really. Take for instance the fact that wind helps dry clothes
on the clothesline. If you put clothes on the clothesline and watch
its dryness on windy days and less windy days you will probably
notice that the clothes tends to become wet on more windy days
because rainy days tend to be windy. That doesn't mean that wind
doesn't help to dry clothes. It just means that there can be
other factors than the wind. Anyway, for CO2 levels and global
temperatures we do have correlation.

It might not stay that way. If for instance we have extremely
high volcanism in the next few weeks and that these volcanoes
emit great amounts of fine dust in the high atmosphere, this
could block sunlight and this year could turn out to be the
coldest year in a very long time. If this kind of thing
goes on for several years, we could lose the correlation.
That would not disprove that humans cause the global temperatures
to rise. Global temperatures would still be warmer that they
would have been if humans had not put all that CO2 in the
atmosphere.

Global Warmists like to ignore that
and only focus on the period of recent history that their models are
tuned to. Even then, there's a four decade period right in the middle
where things got cooler instead of warmer.


The over all trend still follows what science says it should. CO2 is
a greenhouse gas. When you put more CO2 in the atmosphere you should
get rising temperature. And that is what we are seeing.


Except it's not what we saw in the 50's-80's. What we saw then was
increasing CO2 and decreasing temperature.

If you pick and choose your data you can see anything. If you look
at all the data, you see that the temperature trend follows what
the science says it should do.


For the interval over which the models are tuned. Now go look a
half-interval outside that. Does the model accurately predict those
past conditions? Not that I'm aware of

The models aren't tuned over any interval. The basic model is that
we know what is the global warming potential of CO2 and other gases.
Those potentials can be measured in a lab. We can then calculate how
much an added tonne of CO2 in the atmosphere will change global
temperatures. There are numerous complications to that, but that
is the basic idea.

But I know facts won't sway you because you're convinced it's all
"settled".


I have no problems with facts.


Obviously not. You just ignore the ones you don't like.

Which fact am I ignoring?


Oh, 1947-1987, CO2 concentration changes LAGGING temperature changes
rather than leading them, the 'hockey stick', ...

You've been told many times. On short time scales the temperature
won't necessarily follow the trend.

If the data don't fit your theory, adjust the data. And yes, that's
what's been done and some people got in a bit of hot water for it.

I have no doubt that some people have done strange things. As I have
pointed out earlier the data since 1992 fits perfectly well the
forecast made in the 1992 IPCC report so I don't know why they would
adjust the data.


Alain Fournier

Alain Fournier wrote:

On Feb/17/2018 at 1:29 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote:

On Feb/17/2018 at 10:09 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote:

On Feb/17/2018 at 4:50 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote:

On Feb/15/2018 at 4:45 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote:

On Feb/14/2018 at 8:44 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Jeff Findley wrote:

In article ,
says...

JF Mezei wrote:

There are more cuts elsewhe (I like the "constrained budget" for a
budget that has unlimited spending for other stuff Trump likes).

ELIMINATION: FIVE EARTH SCIENCE MISSIONS
National Aeronautics and Space Administration


This is the danger of science allowing itself to be politicized. NASA
Earth Sciences got involved in the political snarl of 'human caused
climate change'. That was fine until the other party took power...

NASA Earth Sciences got involved in collecting and analyzing data, just
like other climate scientists the world over. The fact that the data
doesn't fit the world view of one party in the US doesn't mean the data
is wrong. You can make up your own opinions, but you can't make up your
own data.


No, NASA Earth Sciences got involved in pushing a particular view on
climate change and now they're reaping the 'rewards'. The 'data'
doesn't support a cause. If it did, all those failed predictions over
the years would have come true. They haven't.

I know mere facts won't convince you,


Well, gee, **** you, too.


but if you look at the
predictions, for instance the 1992 IPCC report
https://tinyurl.com/ycns5fw4
(
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/1992%...ull_report.pdf
)
at page 63, item 3.
« Based on current model results, we predict:
« under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A)
« emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of
« global-mean temperature during the next century of
« about 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of
« 0.2°C to 0.5°C per decade); this is greater than
« that seen over the past 10,000 years. This will result
« in a likely increase in global-mean temperature of about
« 1°C above the present value by 2025 and 3°C before the
« end of the next century. The rise will not be steady
« because of the influence of other factors; »

Which can be compared to the graph in:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fe...ecadaltemp.php

You will see that observations fit predictions.


So they got one thing close in a single report (and a couple of
decades is hardly a track record, given the variability of the data in
any case), with no demonstration of causality at all.

The demonstration of causality is quite simple and has been known since
the 19th century. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. If you add greenhouse gases
in the atmosphere the temperature rises.


There's many a slip between theory and the real world. When you look
at the long term historical record, what you find is that CO2
concentration tends to LAG temperature change, which is not what you
would expect if CO2 is a 'cause'.


The lag is very short. It is called feedback loops. Temperature rises
for one reason or another, this causes CO2 to be released from various
sources, which causes the temperature to rise more.


So temperature magically rises and falls (that 'lag' is on both sides)
and CO2 follows along and you call that 'causality'? That's like
saying that being distracted tomorrow caused your traffic accident
today.


No that is not what I call causality. CO2 has been measured in the
lab to be a greenhouse gas. We know that adding CO2 in the atmosphere
will cause increases in temperature because of that. That is the
causality part. What you were describing above is just the correlation
part. Correlation and causality are two different things.


True, but while correlation does not necessarily imply causality,
causality damned well has to show correlation.

Not really.


Yes, really. There being more than one causative factor doesn't
change that.

snip

Global Warmists like to ignore that
and only focus on the period of recent history that their models are
tuned to. Even then, there's a four decade period right in the middle
where things got cooler instead of warmer.


The over all trend still follows what science says it should. CO2 is
a greenhouse gas. When you put more CO2 in the atmosphere you should
get rising temperature. And that is what we are seeing.


Except it's not what we saw in the 50's-80's. What we saw then was
increasing CO2 and decreasing temperature.

If you pick and choose your data you can see anything. If you look
at all the data, you see that the temperature trend follows what
the science says it should do.


For the interval over which the models are tuned. Now go look a
half-interval outside that. Does the model accurately predict those
past conditions? Not that I'm aware of


The models aren't tuned over any interval. The basic model is that
we know what is the global warming potential of CO2 and other gases.
Those potentials can be measured in a lab. We can then calculate how
much an added tonne of CO2 in the atmosphere will change global
temperatures. There are numerous complications to that, but that
is the basic idea.


You've never developed a simulation, have you?

But I know facts won't sway you because you're convinced it's all
"settled".


I have no problems with facts.


Obviously not. You just ignore the ones you don't like.

Which fact am I ignoring?


Oh, 1947-1987, CO2 concentration changes LAGGING temperature changes
rather than leading them, the 'hockey stick', ...


You've been told many times. On short time scales the temperature
won't necessarily follow the trend.


Look at the graph. The warming trend is 'short term' and some 40% of
what is considered 'warming trend' was a cooling trend, instead. So
you should listen to what you're saying.

If the data don't fit your theory, adjust the data. And yes, that's
what's been done and some people got in a bit of hot water for it.

I have no doubt that some people have done strange things. As I have
pointed out earlier the data since 1992 fits perfectly well the
forecast made in the 1992 IPCC report so I don't know why they would
adjust the data.


But that's the short term. Even you say it shouldn't count. The 40
year cooling trend you want to discount as 'short term' is much
longer.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

On Feb/18/2018 at 3:10 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote:

On Feb/17/2018 at 1:29 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote:

On Feb/17/2018 at 10:09 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote:

On Feb/17/2018 at 4:50 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote:

On Feb/15/2018 at 4:45 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote:

On Feb/14/2018 at 8:44 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Jeff Findley wrote:

In article ,
says...

JF Mezei wrote:

There are more cuts elsewhe (I like the "constrained budget" for a
budget that has unlimited spending for other stuff Trump likes).

ELIMINATION: FIVE EARTH SCIENCE MISSIONS
National Aeronautics and Space Administration


This is the danger of science allowing itself to be politicized. NASA
Earth Sciences got involved in the political snarl of 'human caused
climate change'. That was fine until the other party took power...

NASA Earth Sciences got involved in collecting and analyzing data, just
like other climate scientists the world over. The fact that the data
doesn't fit the world view of one party in the US doesn't mean the data
is wrong. You can make up your own opinions, but you can't make up your
own data.


No, NASA Earth Sciences got involved in pushing a particular view on
climate change and now they're reaping the 'rewards'. The 'data'
doesn't support a cause. If it did, all those failed predictions over
the years would have come true. They haven't.

I know mere facts won't convince you,


Well, gee, **** you, too.


but if you look at the
predictions, for instance the 1992 IPCC report
https://tinyurl.com/ycns5fw4
(
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/1992%...ull_report.pdf
)
at page 63, item 3.
« Based on current model results, we predict:
« under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A)
« emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of
« global-mean temperature during the next century of
« about 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of
« 0.2°C to 0.5°C per decade); this is greater than
« that seen over the past 10,000 years. This will result
« in a likely increase in global-mean temperature of about
« 1°C above the present value by 2025 and 3°C before the
« end of the next century. The rise will not be steady
« because of the influence of other factors; »

Which can be compared to the graph in:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fe...ecadaltemp.php

You will see that observations fit predictions.


So they got one thing close in a single report (and a couple of
decades is hardly a track record, given the variability of the data in
any case), with no demonstration of causality at all.

The demonstration of causality is quite simple and has been known since
the 19th century. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. If you add greenhouse gases
in the atmosphere the temperature rises.


There's many a slip between theory and the real world. When you look
at the long term historical record, what you find is that CO2
concentration tends to LAG temperature change, which is not what you
would expect if CO2 is a 'cause'.


The lag is very short. It is called feedback loops. Temperature rises
for one reason or another, this causes CO2 to be released from various
sources, which causes the temperature to rise more.


So temperature magically rises and falls (that 'lag' is on both sides)
and CO2 follows along and you call that 'causality'? That's like
saying that being distracted tomorrow caused your traffic accident
today.


No that is not what I call causality. CO2 has been measured in the
lab to be a greenhouse gas. We know that adding CO2 in the atmosphere
will cause increases in temperature because of that. That is the
causality part. What you were describing above is just the correlation
part. Correlation and causality are two different things.


True, but while correlation does not necessarily imply causality,
causality damned well has to show correlation.

Not really.


Yes, really. There being more than one causative factor doesn't
change that.

snip

Global Warmists like to ignore that
and only focus on the period of recent history that their models are
tuned to. Even then, there's a four decade period right in the middle
where things got cooler instead of warmer.


The over all trend still follows what science says it should. CO2 is
a greenhouse gas. When you put more CO2 in the atmosphere you should
get rising temperature. And that is what we are seeing.


Except it's not what we saw in the 50's-80's. What we saw then was
increasing CO2 and decreasing temperature.

If you pick and choose your data you can see anything. If you look
at all the data, you see that the temperature trend follows what
the science says it should do.


For the interval over which the models are tuned. Now go look a
half-interval outside that. Does the model accurately predict those
past conditions? Not that I'm aware of


The models aren't tuned over any interval. The basic model is that
we know what is the global warming potential of CO2 and other gases.
Those potentials can be measured in a lab. We can then calculate how
much an added tonne of CO2 in the atmosphere will change global
temperatures. There are numerous complications to that, but that
is the basic idea.


You've never developed a simulation, have you?

That is what I do for a living. Not for global warming but for
sexually transmitted diseases.

But I know facts won't sway you because you're convinced it's all
"settled".


I have no problems with facts.


Obviously not. You just ignore the ones you don't like.

Which fact am I ignoring?


Oh, 1947-1987, CO2 concentration changes LAGGING temperature changes
rather than leading them, the 'hockey stick', ...


You've been told many times. On short time scales the temperature
won't necessarily follow the trend.


Look at the graph. The warming trend is 'short term' and some 40% of
what is considered 'warming trend' was a cooling trend, instead. So
you should listen to what you're saying.

Yet if you look at all the data, I have already computed the p-value
of the correlation for you. Remember I got something like 10^-48.
The traditional threshold used a
0.05 to 0.01 significant
0.001 to 0.01 very significant
less than 0.001 extremely significant.
In Spaceballs they would probably say that
less that 10^-10 is ludicrously significant.
10^-48 can only be described as not enough for a true believer.

If the data don't fit your theory, adjust the data. And yes, that's
what's been done and some people got in a bit of hot water for it.

I have no doubt that some people have done strange things. As I have
pointed out earlier the data since 1992 fits perfectly well the
forecast made in the 1992 IPCC report so I don't know why they would
adjust the data.


But that's the short term. Even you say it shouldn't count. The 40
year cooling trend you want to discount as 'short term' is much
longer.

I'm not saying that the fit of the 1992 IPCC report is proof that
global warming is true. We knew in 1992 that global warming was
real. The fit of the 1992 IPCC report is just proof of what is
worth your claim that they need to adjust their model and/or the
data to get a fit.


Alain Fournier

rAlain Fournier wrote:

On Feb/18/2018 at 3:10 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote:

On Feb/17/2018 at 1:29 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote:

On Feb/17/2018 at 10:09 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote:

On Feb/17/2018 at 4:50 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote:

On Feb/15/2018 at 4:45 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote:

On Feb/14/2018 at 8:44 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Jeff Findley wrote:

In article ,
says...

JF Mezei wrote:

There are more cuts elsewhe (I like the "constrained budget" for a
budget that has unlimited spending for other stuff Trump likes).

ELIMINATION: FIVE EARTH SCIENCE MISSIONS
National Aeronautics and Space Administration


This is the danger of science allowing itself to be politicized. NASA
Earth Sciences got involved in the political snarl of 'human caused
climate change'. That was fine until the other party took power...

NASA Earth Sciences got involved in collecting and analyzing data, just
like other climate scientists the world over. The fact that the data
doesn't fit the world view of one party in the US doesn't mean the data
is wrong. You can make up your own opinions, but you can't make up your
own data.


No, NASA Earth Sciences got involved in pushing a particular view on
climate change and now they're reaping the 'rewards'. The 'data'
doesn't support a cause. If it did, all those failed predictions over
the years would have come true. They haven't.

I know mere facts won't convince you,


Well, gee, **** you, too.


but if you look at the
predictions, for instance the 1992 IPCC report
https://tinyurl.com/ycns5fw4
(
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/1992%...ull_report.pdf
)
at page 63, item 3.
« Based on current model results, we predict:
« under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A)
« emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of
« global-mean temperature during the next century of
« about 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of
« 0.2°C to 0.5°C per decade); this is greater than
« that seen over the past 10,000 years. This will result
« in a likely increase in global-mean temperature of about
« 1°C above the present value by 2025 and 3°C before the
« end of the next century. The rise will not be steady
« because of the influence of other factors; »

Which can be compared to the graph in:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fe...ecadaltemp.php

You will see that observations fit predictions.


So they got one thing close in a single report (and a couple of
decades is hardly a track record, given the variability of the data in
any case), with no demonstration of causality at all.

The demonstration of causality is quite simple and has been known since
the 19th century. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. If you add greenhouse gases
in the atmosphere the temperature rises.


There's many a slip between theory and the real world. When you look
at the long term historical record, what you find is that CO2
concentration tends to LAG temperature change, which is not what you
would expect if CO2 is a 'cause'.


The lag is very short. It is called feedback loops. Temperature rises
for one reason or another, this causes CO2 to be released from various
sources, which causes the temperature to rise more.


So temperature magically rises and falls (that 'lag' is on both sides)
and CO2 follows along and you call that 'causality'? That's like
saying that being distracted tomorrow caused your traffic accident
today.


No that is not what I call causality. CO2 has been measured in the
lab to be a greenhouse gas. We know that adding CO2 in the atmosphere
will cause increases in temperature because of that. That is the
causality part. What you were describing above is just the correlation
part. Correlation and causality are two different things.


True, but while correlation does not necessarily imply causality,
causality damned well has to show correlation.

Not really.


Yes, really. There being more than one causative factor doesn't
change that.

snip

Global Warmists like to ignore that
and only focus on the period of recent history that their models are
tuned to. Even then, there's a four decade period right in the middle
where things got cooler instead of warmer.


The over all trend still follows what science says it should. CO2 is
a greenhouse gas. When you put more CO2 in the atmosphere you should
get rising temperature. And that is what we are seeing.


Except it's not what we saw in the 50's-80's. What we saw then was
increasing CO2 and decreasing temperature.

If you pick and choose your data you can see anything. If you look
at all the data, you see that the temperature trend follows what
the science says it should do.


For the interval over which the models are tuned. Now go look a
half-interval outside that. Does the model accurately predict those
past conditions? Not that I'm aware of


The models aren't tuned over any interval. The basic model is that
we know what is the global warming potential of CO2 and other gases.
Those potentials can be measured in a lab. We can then calculate how
much an added tonne of CO2 in the atmosphere will change global
temperatures. There are numerous complications to that, but that
is the basic idea.


You've never developed a simulation, have you?

That is what I do for a living. Not for global warming but for
sexually transmitted diseases.


And you don't do iterative comparison of your simulation to real data
and correct factors for better match? All I can say is that I'm
astonished!

But I know facts won't sway you because you're convinced it's all
"settled".


I have no problems with facts.


Obviously not. You just ignore the ones you don't like.

Which fact am I ignoring?


Oh, 1947-1987, CO2 concentration changes LAGGING temperature changes
rather than leading them, the 'hockey stick', ...


You've been told many times. On short time scales the temperature
won't necessarily follow the trend.


Look at the graph. The warming trend is 'short term' and some 40% of
what is considered 'warming trend' was a cooling trend, instead. So
you should listen to what you're saying.

Yet if you look at all the data, I have already computed the p-value
of the correlation for you. Remember I got something like 10^-48.
The traditional threshold used a
0.05 to 0.01 significant
0.001 to 0.01 very significant
less than 0.001 extremely significant.
In Spaceballs they would probably say that
less that 10^-10 is ludicrously significant.
10^-48 can only be described as not enough for a true believer.


Except that's meaningless since it's looking at the interval the model
is tuned over AND very short term data which you yourself say should
not count.

If the data don't fit your theory, adjust the data. And yes, that's
what's been done and some people got in a bit of hot water for it.

I have no doubt that some people have done strange things. As I have
pointed out earlier the data since 1992 fits perfectly well the
forecast made in the 1992 IPCC report so I don't know why they would
adjust the data.


But that's the short term. Even you say it shouldn't count. The 40
year cooling trend you want to discount as 'short term' is much
longer.

I'm not saying that the fit of the 1992 IPCC report is proof that
global warming is true. We knew in 1992 that global warming was
real. The fit of the 1992 IPCC report is just proof of what is
worth your claim that they need to adjust their model and/or the
data to get a fit.


Typical Global Warmist. Data only counts when you want it to. I put
forward fairly long term swatches of data and you hand wave it away
with a lecture about how "short term trends don't count". Then you
want to trot out short term trends as 'proof' of model validity.
That's not how you validate a model in an observational science.


--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates