Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #711676

Re: Analysis of climate models

Show all headers | View raw

On 11/5/2018 11:39 AM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 3:56:29 PM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
>> On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 4:02:08 PM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 6:32:22 PM UTC-4, benj wrote:
>>> []
>>>>
>>>> As a Nobel prize winner asserted that he was told if the continued
>>>> talking about climate truth, he'd never publish anything in Nature
>>>> again! He replied Nature doesn't publish his stuff anyway.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXxHfb66ZgM
>>>
>>> He is making some interesting points. But there are some inconsistencies
>>> in his arguments. I'll make a few comments on each point, but I'll reserve
>>> conclusions for the end.
>>>
>>> 1 He begins with the claim that measuring global temperature
>>>    is "difficult".
>>> true statement.
>>>
>>> 2 Global warming is not happening, that the temperature is
>>>    "amazingly stable" (0.3%change).
>>> Plausible argument.
>>>
>>> 3 That CO2 causes the rise shown in the hockey stick graph
>>>    is the Emperor's new clothes.
>>> claimed without support.
>>>
>>> 4 Population growth and related deforestation and paving
>>>    may be the cause.
>>> Plausible statement.
>>>
>>> 5 that the APS is making a religious statement when it says
>>>    evidence is "incontrovertible" that global warming is happening.
>>> he goes off on a religious tangent.
>>>
>>> 6 That APS is wrong to say disruptions may happen with consequences in many
>>>    areas (specific example human health), because "everything is better".
>>> Everything is not better world wide.
>>>
>>> 7 Year to year comparisons by Oxfam "trying to convince people"
>>> valid point.
>>>
>>> This is just about one third of the way through this video.
>>> I'll try to cover more tomorrow. But here are my deeper comments so far:
>>>
>>>
>>> Point 1 is about the difficulty of measuring global average temperature,
>>> but just because it is hard does not make it impossible. It is true but
>>> not really relevant.
>>>
>>> In point 2 he claims that global warming is not happening, but then
>>> in points 3 & 4 his claims alternate causes. Anything can be the cause
>>> of something not happening. He cannot have both no change and change.
>>>
>>> On point 5 his argument is a counterexample that the APS does not claim
>>> that the mass of the proton is incontrovertible. That is true, the mass
>>> can be measured more precisely. However, I would expect that the APS
>>> would agree that it is incontrovertible that the mass of the hydrogen
>>> atom is dominated by the mass of the proton (as an example). Or that
>>> it is incontrovertible that massive objects attract. (IOW, that
>>> gravity is "incontrovertible". So his argument is only about the
>>> language used, that it is a religious statement. He follows that
>>> with a claim that the Catholic Church says the earth is not round.
>>> That is totally false and has been false for hundreds of years.
>>>   
>>> In point 6 he claims "everything is better", but this is a conclusion
>>> reached from a sheltered society. Counterexample is farming is not
>>> better in many Equatorial African countries. Droughts have increased
>>> in frequency and severity over that same 150 year period.
>>>
>>> A review of droughts on the African continent:
>>> a geospatial and long-term perspective
>>> I. Masih, S. Maskey, F. E. F. Mussá, and P. Trambauer
>>>
>>> https://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/18/3635/2014/hess-18-3635-2014.pdf
>>> "A number of inferences are drawn from the analysis of
>>> the available data and scientific evidence reviewed in this paper
>>> (Tables 2 and 3). The frequency, intensity and geospatial
>>> coverage of droughts have significantly increased across
>>> the entire African continent during the second half of the
>>> 1900–2013 period."
>>>
>>> Point 7 is valid but not relevant. Oxfam is not a scientific organization.
>>> Most people know how to sort advertising hype from regular news. But it
>>> is a valid point when news organizations begin to exaggerate. This has
>>> happened on both sides of the issue. So lets call it a wash.
>>>
>>>
>>> I have to admit, he is convinced of something, but I don't know what yet.
>>> He says it isn't happening, but offers alternative causes.
>>>
>>> I'm open but still concerned.
>>>    Ed
>>
> James, please learn to wrap your text properly. Google (which I use also)
> does not automatically wrap text. You need to include returns for the end
> of each line

Typical Lefty change of subject to deflect debate into backwaters.

>> Ed, with this post you demonstrate that you are really out of your element in any kind of scientific discussion.

As do you. Mostly you just preach it.

> Please leave the personal comments out of this discussion.

You mean like complaining about lines wrapping properly. Cripes using 
Google is a HUGE personal statement about you and it ain't good, lefty.
Bet you'd censor McFly if you had the power!


>>   Prof Giaever is not presenting a refutation of the AGW premise. He's trying to demonstrate to the public how a real scientist examines a premise. He is just pointing out that the AGW proponents haven't even come close to meeting the burden of proof.
> 
> 
> that's possible. As I said, I have not even viewed the entire video.

If you find it possible then perhaps you should examine it?

>> In a nutshell, real science involve reproducible experimental evidence. Global warming is about distracting the public's attention from the fact that there is zero reproducible experimental evidence linking CO2 or any other human factor to this imaginary warming.
> 
> Please note: my focus for this thread is basically,
> Do the global warming models provide reasonably reliable predictions?
> What do we do about it?

Obviously given the VAST errors that actual weather has demonstrated in 
virtually all models that all show exaggerated warming it's clear that 
they are not reasonably reliable as if the failure of weather 
predictions didn't already demonstrate the futility of climate models.


>>
>> Stick with engineering.  You are a church lady.  You believe.  Scientist only allow themselves to believe when the burden of proof is met.
> 
> Again, leave the politics and personal comments out of this thread,
> please.

Politics? YOU are the one doing politics here. You take global warming 
as your religion while all data shows fabrications McFly points out how 
science rather than religion and politics treats such an issue and then 
(as is so typical of lefty hypocrites) accused HIM of doing what you 
clearly are doing.

>> International non-Skeptics Society
>> goo.gl/[off topic link deleted]
>>
>> James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
> 
> have a good day.
>    Ed

Have a nice and profitable day, Ed.

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-31 10:22 -0700
  UsedCar salesman cite facts. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-10-31 12:37 -0700
  Re: Analysis of climate models Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-10-31 14:49 -0500
    Re: Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-01 13:00 -0700
  Re: Analysis of climate models benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-31 18:32 -0400
    Re: Analysis of climate models Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-01 06:32 +0100
      Re: Analysis of climate models benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-01 02:06 -0400
        Re: Analysis of climate models Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-01 07:33 +0100
          Re: Analysis of climate models benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-01 10:08 -0400
            Re: Analysis of climate models Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-01 15:33 +0100
            Re: Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-01 13:22 -0700
              Re: Analysis of climate models Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-11-14 00:28 -0500
                Re: Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-15 16:47 -0800
          Re: Analysis of climate models Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-01 10:16 -0500
    Re: Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-01 13:16 -0700
    Re: Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-01 16:02 -0700
      Re: Analysis of climate models Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-02 20:19 -0500
      Re: Analysis of climate models James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 12:56 -0800
        Re: Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 08:39 -0800
          Re: Analysis of climate models Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-05 12:59 -0600
          Re: Analysis of climate models benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 14:45 -0500
            Re: Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-13 13:07 -0800
          Re: Analysis of climate models Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 12:34 -0800
            Re: Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-13 13:09 -0800
              Re: Analysis of climate models Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2018-11-16 09:50 -0800
        Re: Analysis of climate models pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-11-05 19:17 -0800
          Re: Analysis of climate models Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2018-11-06 07:16 -0800
  Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-01 21:23 +0000
  Re: Analysis of climate models Boris Mohar <borism_void_@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-02 05:21 -0400
    Re: Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 08:04 -0800
  Re: Analysis of climate models Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-11-02 08:31 -0400
    Re: Analysis of climate models Dan Riley <dan131riley@gmail.com> - 2018-11-02 17:15 -0400
      Re: Analysis of climate models Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 12:40 -0800
        Re: Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-13 13:13 -0800
          Re: Analysis of climate models Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-18 17:22 -0600
            Re: Analysis of climate models James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-11-18 17:48 -0800
            Re: Analysis of climate models Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-19 05:05 +0100
              Re: Analysis of climate models Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-18 22:46 -0600
                Re: Analysis of climate models Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-19 06:59 +0100
                Re: Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-20 07:42 -0800
                Re: Analysis of climate models James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-11-20 08:58 -0800
                Re: Analysis of climate models benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-20 19:17 -0500
                Re: Analysis of climate models benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-20 12:22 -0500
                Re: Analysis of climate models Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-20 21:02 -0600
            Re: Analysis of climate models benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-19 11:01 -0500
              Re: Analysis of climate models Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2018-11-19 12:58 -0800
                Re: Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-20 08:10 -0800
                Re: Analysis of climate models benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-20 12:04 -0500
                Re: Analysis of climate models Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-20 22:02 -0600
      Re: Analysis of climate models Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-11-19 07:00 -0500
        Re: Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-20 08:00 -0800
          Re: Analysis of climate models Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-11-20 21:28 -0500
            Re: Analysis of climate models James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-11-21 10:38 -0800
            Re: Analysis of climate models Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-11-25 00:53 -0500
    Re: Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 08:21 -0800
  Re: Analysis of climate models Dan Riley <dan131riley@gmail.com> - 2018-11-02 17:08 -0400
    Re: Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 08:23 -0800
      Re: Analysis of climate models Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-05 13:00 -0600
        Re: Analysis of climate models Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-05 13:04 -0600
          Re: Analysis of climate models benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 14:51 -0500
            Re: Analysis of climate models Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-05 13:59 -0600
  Re: Analysis of climate models Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-11-19 07:27 -0500
    Re: Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-20 08:06 -0800
      Re: Analysis of climate models benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-20 11:59 -0500

csiph-web