President Is Dead Wrong About Climate Change: Nobel Prize Winning Scientist

[Frankfooter]

1. I think the charts look identical, except the horizontal scaling of NASA chart is a little smaller, making the changes look more dramatic.
2. The NASA data indicates a change from the 1940 peak of a .25 anomaly (whatever that means, I suppose they must have picked a year to represent what think the "normal" temperature is) to a what looks like a 2012 peak of .75 anomaly, with a dip in temperature in between. Is this what I'm supposed to be so worried about?
3. I've browsed through the Ball presentation again, because the chart you've represented as his didn't look like his presentation. I couldn't find it in the video. Can you tell me at what time it appears?

This argument has not won me over.

Sorry, that chart is from the doc, 'the great global warming swindle', its a Tim Ball slide from that doc, not the one here. My mistake.
Its still a Tim Ball misrepresentation of the data, or a dishonest claim, but its not from the video posted earlier.

I don't really have the time or want to dedicate the time to looking through his presentation, I've spent enough time watching that bullshit.
But look at it this way, there is nowhere else that he presents his arguments that I've found where you can really see what he is claiming.
If he was legit he'd have research papers, or properly researched articles, but all he's got is this lame video of a presentation to a roomful of deniers.

Contrast that with the work here.
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

Where every single statement is backed up with direct links to the research and data, where every statement is the result of thousands of scientists working together.
Why do you think that one kook is right and those thousands of scientists are all dishonest?

 

[bishop]

Sorry but the study of quantum mechanics doesn't extend to the practicalities of any physics of climate change. You know this too which is why you stoop back to your claims about conspiracy and your pretending that a guy has any more credibility outside of his field than I do.

You do not need to have to been a police officer to know that shooting unarmed civilians with wrong, you do not need to be a farmer to know that you do not plant sh*t when the ground is frozen, you do not need to be a mathematician to know that 1+1 is not equal to 3, finally; you do not need to be a scientist to know that climate science is not real science.

 

[Frankfooter]

You do not need to have to been a police officer to know that shooting unarmed civilians with wrong, you do not need to be a farmer to know that you do not plant sh*t when the ground is frozen, you do not need to be a mathematician to know that 1+1 is not equal to 3, finally; you do not need to be a scientist to know that climate science is not real science.

The same bunch of people who just shot a rocket to Pluto within 72 seconds of when they predicted know that anthropogenic climate change is real and a danger.
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Those who do the real science accept the IPCC's work as real science.

As does pretty much every legit scientific association, starting with AAAS.
http://whatweknow.aaas.org/

 

[bishop]

Your appeal to authority does not impress me. Climate science is not science, anyone with a cursory understanding of the scientific method can plainly see that climate science is not science. In the same vein, if NASA told me that my d*ck is 12 inches, I would not believe them because I know how to use a ruler.

 

[Frankfooter]

Climate science is not science

Ok, I give up.
You are an idiot who is too closed minded, its not worth my time arguing with you.

If your basic understanding of science is either so faulty, or your prejudices so ingrained that you refuse to accept real evidence or the work of people much smarter then you, then you really are quite hopeless. Virtually every legit scientific organization in the US supports the work that 97% of climatologists agree about through the IPCC.

But if you think you are smarter then just about every single scientist in North America, with the exception of the occasion retired geography teacher, then go ahead.
Enjoy the health benefits of cigarettes, not using vaccines and tanning until you're nice and brown, you'll be in fine company.

 

[GPIDEAL]

You do not need to have to been a police officer to know that shooting unarmed civilians with wrong, you do not need to be a farmer to know that you do not plant sh*t when the ground is frozen, you do not need to be a mathematician to know that 1+1 is not equal to 3, finally; you do not need to be a scientist to know that climate science is not real science.

I'm sure there are several disciplines that can be applied to the phenomenon of climate and weather. Perhaps it's a multi-disciplinarian study. The two disciplines that I can think of that most closely relate would be physics and chemistry. Are there others?

 

[GPIDEAL]

Your appeal to authority does not impress me. Climate science is not science, anyone with a cursory understanding of the scientific method can plainly see that climate science is not science. In the same vein, if NASA told me that my d*ck is 12 inches, I would not believe them because I know how to use a ruler.

Just because you can't prove climate change with a table top experiment*, doesn't mean that no science is involved. Einstein's Theory of Relativity is a scientific hypothesis. Astrophysicists theorize and sometimes have to wait for their theories to be proven when bigger and more powerful telescopes are built or other new technologies develop. But it doesn't mean that their disciplines are non-scientific.


*The greenhouse effect can be proven in a lab or demonstrated in every day applications.

 

[bishop]

Ok, I give up.
You are an idiot who is too closed minded, its not worth my time arguing with you.

If your basic understanding of science is either so faulty, or your prejudices so ingrained that you refuse to accept real evidence or the work of people much smarter then you, then you really are quite hopeless. Virtually every legit scientific organization in the US supports the work that 97% of climatologists agree about through the IPCC.

But if you think you are smarter then just about every single scientist in North America, with the exception of the occasion retired geography teacher, then go ahead.
Enjoy the health benefits of cigarettes, not using vaccines and tanning until you're nice and brown, you'll be in fine company.

I demand science out of scientists, you do not, it is not I who is the idiot. All you demand is the word "science" be in the title and you will eat it up like pigs rolling in sh*t.

cigarettes and vaccines belong to medical science, I am comfortable with the view that cigarettes and bad for you and vaccines good for you, the reason why I accept that as truth is because in medical science there are controls and with controls you can generate sufficient statistical analysis to benchmark the results.

Where are the controls in climate science? Good luck finding alternate earths to run experiments and controls on.

 

[bishop]

I'm sure there are several disciplines that can be applied to the phenomenon of climate and weather. Perhaps it's a multi-disciplinarian study. The two disciplines that I can think of that most closely relate would be physics and chemistry. Are there others?

The discipline most closely related to climate science is finance. In finance there are more PHDs than in the climate field. Finance does not concern itself with the scientific method, just math, models, and alot of luck, no different than climate science.

 

[bishop]

Just because you can't prove climate change with a table top experiment*, doesn't mean that no science is involved. Einstein's Theory of Relativity is a scientific hypothesis. Astrophysicists theorize and sometimes have to wait for their theories to be proven when bigger and more powerful telescopes are built or other new technologies develop. But it doesn't mean that their disciplines are non-scientific.


*The greenhouse effect can be proven in a lab or demonstrated in every day applications.

General relativity was only accepted based on predictions of the orbit of mercury which eddington observed, at the time before eddington's observations even Einstein was unsure if his theory was a reflection of reality or just a cool mind f*ck. Mind you even well after eddington's observations general relativity was not universally accepted, what really made relativity "real" was NASA scientists could not figure out why clocks on early satellites were constantly off by a little WRT clocks on the ground, once they applied general relativity to the clocks then all the clocks matched up and there was little doubt left WRT general relativity.

Take the 2013 nobel prize for physics, it was awarded to Peter Higgs for the Higgs Boson, most people suspected that the Higgs field was real, and scientists only accepted that Higgs was right from the results of the LHC. The standard for accepting the Higgs field was rigorous, something like the predicted and the results match down to 10 decimal places.

Those are examples of real science and real scientific rigor, that is the standard all real scientists should aim to achieve.

I know for certain that you can run a simple experiment that shows that CO2 acts as a greater thermal insulator than other gasses in our atmosphere (mostly nitrogen and Oxygen). However that experiment only shows me that CO2 is a better insulator WRT other gases in our atmosphere, if any scientists wants to extend that towards AGW then it is their burden to prove their hypothesis using methods and rigor that is common to other scientific fields.

 

[Moviefan-2]

The greenhouse effect can be proven in a lab or demonstrated in every day applications.

You could test the predictions of how man-made greenhouse gases would affect the Earth's temperature against the observed results.

Unfortunately, the predictions have been spectacularly wrong.

 

[GPIDEAL]

General relativity was only accepted based on predictions of the orbit of mercury which eddington observed, at the time before eddington's observations even Einstein was unsure if his theory was a reflection of reality or just a cool mind f*ck. Mind you even well after eddington's observations general relativity was not universally accepted, what really made relativity "real" was NASA scientists could not figure out why clocks on early satellites were constantly off by a little WRT clocks on the ground, once they applied general relativity to the clocks then all the clocks matched up and there was little doubt left WRT general relativity.

Take the 2013 nobel prize for physics, it was awarded to Peter Higgs for the Higgs Boson, most people suspected that the Higgs field was real, and scientists only accepted that Higgs was right from the results of the LHC. The standard for accepting the Higgs field was rigorous, something like the predicted and the results match down to 10 decimal places.

Those are examples of real science and real scientific rigor, that is the standard all real scientists should aim to achieve.

I know for certain that you can run a simple experiment that shows that CO2 acts as a greater thermal insulator than other gasses in our atmosphere (mostly nitrogen and Oxygen). However that experiment only shows me that CO2 is a better insulator WRT other gases in our atmosphere, if any scientists wants to extend that towards AGW then it is their burden to prove their hypothesis using methods and rigor that is common to other scientific fields.

Thank you for your detailed answer. So doesn't this apply to the climate scientists who may be proven right without any doubt or with enough confidence?

Theoretical physics becomes reality the longer they use that particle accelerator in Europe.

You could test the predictions of how man-made greenhouse gases would affect the Earth's temperature against the observed results.

Unfortunately, the predictions have been spectacularly wrong.

From what I've seen on this thread, more predictions have been right than wrong, or trending in the right direction.

 

[GPIDEAL]

The discipline most closely related to climate science is finance. In finance there are more PHDs than in the climate field. Finance does not concern itself with the scientific method, just math, models, and alot of luck, no different than climate science.

Pure statistics is not finance but mathematics. Statistics is used in science all the time, when working with observed samples and how they might apply to a population.

I'll say that the study of the climate also involves oceanography (for currents), vulcanology and meteorology (atmospheric science).

So I think there is such a thing as climate science, but it is a multi-disciplinary field of study.

 

[Moviefan-2]

From what I've seen on this thread, more predictions have been right than wrong, or trending in the right direction.

Here is what was predicted:

Here are the results:

IPCC:

Met Office (the U.K.):

The University of Hamburg has calculated the computer model predictions have a 98% failure rate.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Ok thanks MF, but despite the higher projection, doesn't the actual line prove that the trend is an increase in temperature? (Doesn't look like 98% off)

 

[bishop]

Thank you for your detailed answer. So doesn't this apply to the climate scientists who may be proven right without any doubt or with enough confidence?

Theoretical physics becomes reality the longer they use that particle accelerator in Europe.



From what I've seen on this thread, more predictions have been right than wrong, or trending in the right direction.

I am super cool with theoretical physics, most physicists know that ultimately their pet hypothesis needs experimental data to confirm or deny it. So long as the attitude that experiments needs to be done, then theoretical physics is scientific. This extends to things in which we today have no hope of running experiments on like; what happens inside a black hole, string theory, dark matter, etc... Of course though I consider theoretical physics scientific even though experimental results may never happen, I would not set real world policy based on string theory or many dimensions etc... without rigorous experimental results.

There are 3 general directions for climate, lower, higher, and the same. The same never happens, so your real choices are lower and higher, so you are right about the general direction 50% of the time based on dumb luck. The Higgs field predictions matched LHC results down to something like 10 decimal places, quantum mechanics matches experimental results to something like 20+ decimal places, general realativty matches experimental results probably somewhere between higgs and QM. A 50/50 WRT other scientific disciplines is rubbish. Take an IPCC prediction and match it against real world temperatures, error is in the order of degrees nevermind 10/20/30 decimal places.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Ok thanks MF, but despite the higher projection, doesn't the actual line prove that the trend is an increase in temperature? (Doesn't look like 98% off)

The question isn't whether or not the Earth's temperature has increased over the past 150 years. It has. Believers and skeptics are in agreement on that point (contrary to what you sometimes hear).

The question is whether there has been any warming that is unprecedented or unusual that would mostly be attributed to man-made greenhouse gases.

There is no evidence of anything unusual occurring -- in fact, it is recognized that the warming that occurred prior to 1950 was clearly caused by natural factors. As well, for the entire period, there is no evidence that man-made emissions have been a dominant cause of warming.

The temperature has increased over the past 150 years and most of the historical trend is consistent with the models, but that is because the modellers already knew the results for the past.

The divergence occurs at about the turn of the century and it is for a period where the modellers didn't already know the results. It is those predictions -- the predictions for years where the results weren't already known -- that were spectacularly wrong.

 

[GPIDEAL]

I am super cool with theoretical physics, most physicists know that ultimately their pet hypothesis needs experimental data to confirm or deny it. So long as the attitude that experiments needs to be done, then theoretical physics is scientific. This extends to things in which we today have no hope of running experiments on like; what happens inside a black hole, string theory, dark matter, etc... Of course though I consider theoretical physics scientific even though experimental results may never happen, I would not set real world policy based on string theory or many dimensions etc... without rigorous experimental results.

There are 3 general directions for climate, lower, higher, and the same. The same never happens, so your real choices are lower and higher, so you are right about the general direction 50% of the time based on dumb luck. The Higgs field predictions matched LHC results down to something like 10 decimal places, quantum mechanics matches experimental results to something like 20+ decimal places, general realativty matches experimental results probably somewhere between higgs and QM. A 50/50 WRT other scientific disciplines is rubbish. Take an IPCC prediction and match it against real world temperatures, error is in the order of degrees nevermind 10/20/30 decimal places.

What is the standard deviation for predictions vs. actual?

 

[GPIDEAL]

The question isn't whether or not the Earth's temperature has increased over the past 150 years. It has. Believers and skeptics are in agreement on that point (contrary to what you sometimes hear).

The question is whether there has been any warming that is unprecedented or unusual that would mostly be attributed to man-made greenhouse gases.

There is no evidence of anything unusual occurring -- in fact, it is recognized that the warming that occurred prior to 1950 was clearly caused by natural factors. As well, for the entire period, there is no evidence that man-made emissions have been a dominant cause of warming.

The temperature has increased over the past 150 years and most of the historical trend is consistent with the models, but that is because the modellers already knew the results for the past.

The divergence occurs at about the turn of the century and it is for a period where the modellers didn't already know the results. It is those predictions -- the predictions for years where the results weren't already known -- that were spectacularly wrong.

Can't they create a lab experiment with a lamp acting as the sun inside a chamber with soil and water and vegetation and increase the CO2 and check the temperature?

 

[bishop]

Can't they create a lab experiment with a lamp acting as the sun inside a chamber with soil and water and vegetation and increase the CO2 and check the temperature?

They have done that, basically a lamp in a chamber filled with different CO2 levels and observing the temperature, the conclusion is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas WRT other main gases in our atmosphere. As far as I know they did not put in soil and plants in that experiment.

On a much larger scale are bio domes, there have been a few of those I think, there was a really big one that went to sh*t after about 1 year, the inhabitants had to be evacuated. Although these bio domes are huge and cost millions, I have not heard much in terms of experimental results.

Right now we just have a cursory understanding of how climate works, I do not feel we are at the place where we can make solid conclusions yet, at the very least we need quantum computers to be able to simulate climate in sufficient detail but even then you can only simulate what you know, unknown unknowns can not be simulated. Medical science runs into the same problem, the human body is too complex to simulate in detail, so they rely on experiment + controls + statistics to fine cures/solutions, if there were many alternate earths or if we could time travel then we can use the same approach for climate.