Oceans will be drastically different by 2100

[Abraham3]

virtually all of physics is based on mathematical models. If you eliminate them, very little is left. Every scientist knows and accepts that. If you don't know or accept that the only explanation is that you don't understand science. That’s OK but don't pretend otherwise.

Physics is based on equations which have been confirmed with experiments and measurements that can be duplicated with great accuracy. That`s what it takes to qualify.

Is the problem here that you don't know what a model does, that you don't know what a model IS, or both? This statement, Mr Bear, is... well, I wouldn't reproduce it anywhere they can read English. Based on equations? Really? From where? Do they pick them growing out in a field? Do they fall from the sky? And what do the equations MEAN? Does 2+2=5 specify a Feynmann diagram for weak kaon decay?

Look, I figure you know PMZ is correct, but you feel like you've got to try to deny what he's saying. You've chosen to use the "baffle 'em with your bullshit" approach. Unfortunately, your bullshit isn't baffling enough to throw off a third grader.

If all you got is a "climate science" mathematical model that can`t even mimic reality in so called "hind casts" with any degree of accuracy then you got nothing that would qualify as science, especially not within the framework of exact physics.

That mathematical model? It's chock-a-block full of EQUATIONS that describe climate processes. Every model you and I have ever run into do hind casts just fine cause no author would release them to the public if they didn't. That doesn't mean you can't fuck one up, just like you can fuck up someone trying to do some of that "exact physics".

Reality Check Bear: I just hit a baseball that masses 350 gms at a speed of 75 m/S at an angle of 45 degrees up from the horizontal. When the ball left the bat, it was 1.5 meters off the ground. Sounds nice and tidy, doesn't it. Trouble is, we're out here in the real world: we're using a real horsehide ball with stitching and scuffs and scrapes and cuts and we're in a public ball park with grass and weeds and bumps, the air is moving this way and that, it has some water vapor in it, its temperature and density change as we move through it, there are gnats, mosquitoes and dragonflies buzzing around, it's 1500 hours sidereal time on the 15th of May, 1987 and the moon is 72% between perigee and apogee. I want you to use some of that fancy-dan figgerin' you knows all about to tell me exactly - not about, not close, not even with enormous precision, but EXACTLY where that ball will hit the ground. Or you can tell us why you can't.

All you got then is nothing more than the same "mathematical model" which bookies and gamblers employ.

If that's what you actually think, you're an ignorant buffoon.

If that's just your idea of some baffling bullshit... well, you're not very good at it.

At least they face up to it when their bets were wrong, which "climatologists" refuse to to. Your future trend predictions which were based on a largely falsified past failed to materialize 15 years in a row and counting. So far all you got is a tree that yielded a hockey stick trend and now a dead mushroom which perpetuates the same hallucinations.

The ToA balance still shows the Earth to be accumulating energy. GHG levels are still rising and they still absorb IR. The ocean is heating at a rate never before seen. The Earth's seas are still rising. So... what makes you think global warming has stopped?

What, EXACTLY, are your theories as to the causes and processes that are driving the climate's behavior for the past 150 years? What do YOU believe has caused the warming we've experience and what do YOU believe is causing the current hiatus? And how about a real answer and no more of this very unbaffling bullshit.

ps: less useless photos would be nice as well

 

[Abraham3]

Waiting for Mr Bear.

 

[flacaltenn]

I could help you out here. With that example you gave, youre about to become bear lunch. When Pbear parks his sled.
All those seemingly diffcult variables in your problem can be measured repeatedly and have closed form math relationships. So whether the model is canonically mathmatical or more indirect like in an AI LEARNING architecture, there is unlimited data inputs to test and Multiple output truth vectors to measure against. A global temperature model has only one output truth vector that can be measured against. And really only one set of input data --- of varying quality to drive the model.

For a complex climate system model whose only vverifiable truth is a single temperature record, no matter what architecture is chosen for the model --- you will never have enogh test and truth data to derive the relationships within the model.

this is --- kinda---- similiiar to the requirement for a certain number of simultaneous equations to solve for certain number of variables.Or the way sample size affects the confidence of a statiscal observation..
Same kinda modeling certainty applies to how much VERIFIABLE AND INDEPENDENT experimental data you can exercise on the model.

 

[PMZ]

I could help you out here. With that example you gave, youre about to become bear lunch. When Pbear parks his sled.
All those seemingly diffcult variables in your problem can be measured repeatedly and have closed form math relationships. So whether the model is canonically mathmatical or more indirect like in an AI LEARNING architecture, there is unlimited data inputs to test and Multiple output truth vectors to measure against. A global temperature model has only one output truth vector that can be measured against. And really only one set of input data --- of varying quality to drive the model.

For a complex climate system model whose only vverifiable truth is a single temperature record, no matter what architecture is chosen for the model --- you will never have enogh test and truth data to derive the relationships within the model.

this is --- kinda---- similiiar to the requirement for a certain number of simultaneous equations to solve for certain number of variables.Or the way sample size affects the confidence of a statiscal observation..
Same kinda modeling certainty applies to how much VERIFIABLE AND INDEPENDENT experimental data you can exercise on the model.

So, you are saying that you have no science that proves anything or even suggests an alternative theory. But, you are waiting for a prediction certifiably certain from others. And until then you will hope for a reprieve from being wrong with your WAGs.

I see.

 

[flacaltenn]

I could help you out here. With that example you gave, youre about to become bear lunch. When Pbear parks his sled.
All those seemingly diffcult variables in your problem can be measured repeatedly and have closed form math relationships. So whether the model is canonically mathmatical or more indirect like in an AI LEARNING architecture, there is unlimited data inputs to test and Multiple output truth vectors to measure against. A global temperature model has only one output truth vector that can be measured against. And really only one set of input data --- of varying quality to drive the model.

For a complex climate system model whose only vverifiable truth is a single temperature record, no matter what architecture is chosen for the model --- you will never have enogh test and truth data to derive the relationships within the model.

this is --- kinda---- similiiar to the requirement for a certain number of simultaneous equations to solve for certain number of variables.Or the way sample size affects the confidence of a statiscal observation..
Same kinda modeling certainty applies to how much VERIFIABLE AND INDEPENDENT experimental data you can exercise on the model.

So, you are saying that you have no science that proves anything or even suggests an alternative theory. But, you are waiting for a prediction certifiably certain from others. And until then you will hope for a reprieve from being wrong with your WAGs.

I see.

Well duhhh. Dont need certifiably certain. Id settle for mildly accurate and comprehensive.

And ive told you before. There is no requirement in the science biz to provide an alternative theory before you take weed whacker to an existing one...
Can I just assume that you will NEVER understand that concept no matter how many times it is pointed out to you?

 

[PMZ]

I could help you out here. With that example you gave, youre about to become bear lunch. When Pbear parks his sled.
All those seemingly diffcult variables in your problem can be measured repeatedly and have closed form math relationships. So whether the model is canonically mathmatical or more indirect like in an AI LEARNING architecture, there is unlimited data inputs to test and Multiple output truth vectors to measure against. A global temperature model has only one output truth vector that can be measured against. And really only one set of input data --- of varying quality to drive the model.

For a complex climate system model whose only vverifiable truth is a single temperature record, no matter what architecture is chosen for the model --- you will never have enogh test and truth data to derive the relationships within the model.

this is --- kinda---- similiiar to the requirement for a certain number of simultaneous equations to solve for certain number of variables.Or the way sample size affects the confidence of a statiscal observation..
Same kinda modeling certainty applies to how much VERIFIABLE AND INDEPENDENT experimental data you can exercise on the model.

So, you are saying that you have no science that proves anything or even suggests an alternative theory. But, you are waiting for a prediction certifiably certain from others. And until then you will hope for a reprieve from being wrong with your WAGs.

I see.

Well duhhh. Dont need certifiably certain. Id settle for mildly accurate and comprehensive.

And ive told you before. There is no requirement in the science biz to provide an alternative theory before you take weed whacker to an existing one...
Can I just assume that you will NEVER understand that concept no matter how many times it is pointed out to you?

You are proposing that zero science, in other words a wild ass guess, should be considered as equally probable to a highly certain scientific conclusion.

That's pure delusion.

 

[orogenicman]

I could help you out here. With that example you gave, youre about to become bear lunch. When Pbear parks his sled.
All those seemingly diffcult variables in your problem can be measured repeatedly and have closed form math relationships. So whether the model is canonically mathmatical or more indirect like in an AI LEARNING architecture, there is unlimited data inputs to test and Multiple output truth vectors to measure against. A global temperature model has only one output truth vector that can be measured against. And really only one set of input data --- of varying quality to drive the model.

For a complex climate system model whose only vverifiable truth is a single temperature record, no matter what architecture is chosen for the model --- you will never have enogh test and truth data to derive the relationships within the model.

this is --- kinda---- similiiar to the requirement for a certain number of simultaneous equations to solve for certain number of variables.Or the way sample size affects the confidence of a statiscal observation..
Same kinda modeling certainty applies to how much VERIFIABLE AND INDEPENDENT experimental data you can exercise on the model.

So, you are saying that you have no science that proves anything or even suggests an alternative theory. But, you are waiting for a prediction certifiably certain from others. And until then you will hope for a reprieve from being wrong with your WAGs.

I see.

Well duhhh. Dont need certifiably certain. Id settle for mildly accurate and comprehensive.

And ive told you before. There is no requirement in the science biz to provide an alternative theory before you take weed whacker to an existing one...
Can I just assume that you will NEVER understand that concept no matter how many times it is pointed out to you?

Sorry, this is unacceptable. It isn't enough to dethrone a scientific paradigm. At the end of the day, the data still has to be explained. And that means that you must offer an alternative that better explains said data. In other words, if not AGW, then what? Do you have ANYTHING like this? Anything at all?

 

[westwall]

So, you are saying that you have no science that proves anything or even suggests an alternative theory. But, you are waiting for a prediction certifiably certain from others. And until then you will hope for a reprieve from being wrong with your WAGs.

I see.

Well duhhh. Dont need certifiably certain. Id settle for mildly accurate and comprehensive.

And ive told you before. There is no requirement in the science biz to provide an alternative theory before you take weed whacker to an existing one...
Can I just assume that you will NEVER understand that concept no matter how many times it is pointed out to you?

You are proposing that zero science, in other words a wild ass guess, should be considered as equally probable to a highly certain scientific conclusion.

That's pure delusion.

Better a scientific wild ass guess than the fabricated horse manure you people have been serving up for the last decade.

 

[westwall]

So, you are saying that you have no science that proves anything or even suggests an alternative theory. But, you are waiting for a prediction certifiably certain from others. And until then you will hope for a reprieve from being wrong with your WAGs.

I see.

Well duhhh. Dont need certifiably certain. Id settle for mildly accurate and comprehensive.

And ive told you before. There is no requirement in the science biz to provide an alternative theory before you take weed whacker to an existing one...
Can I just assume that you will NEVER understand that concept no matter how many times it is pointed out to you?

Sorry, this is unacceptable. It isn't enough to dethrone a scientific paradigm. At the end of the day, the data still has to be explained. And that means that you must offer an alternative that better explains said data. In other words, if not AGW, then what? Do you have ANYTHING like this? Anything at all?

What data? Computer models are not data. When will you people learn this fact?

 

[PMZ]

Well duhhh. Dont need certifiably certain. Id settle for mildly accurate and comprehensive.

And ive told you before. There is no requirement in the science biz to provide an alternative theory before you take weed whacker to an existing one...
Can I just assume that you will NEVER understand that concept no matter how many times it is pointed out to you?

You are proposing that zero science, in other words a wild ass guess, should be considered as equally probable to a highly certain scientific conclusion.

That's pure delusion.

Better a scientific wild ass guess than the fabricated horse manure you people have been serving up for the last decade.

Scientific, wild ass guess, is an oxymoron.

 

[PMZ]

Well duhhh. Dont need certifiably certain. Id settle for mildly accurate and comprehensive.

And ive told you before. There is no requirement in the science biz to provide an alternative theory before you take weed whacker to an existing one...
Can I just assume that you will NEVER understand that concept no matter how many times it is pointed out to you?

Sorry, this is unacceptable. It isn't enough to dethrone a scientific paradigm. At the end of the day, the data still has to be explained. And that means that you must offer an alternative that better explains said data. In other words, if not AGW, then what? Do you have ANYTHING like this? Anything at all?

What data? Computer models are not data. When will you people learn this fact?

Data by your definition can only come after an event. Models are used for predictions or events beyond our senses.

By the time that you get your data, preventative solution opportunity will be long gone.

 

[flacaltenn]

So, you are saying that you have no science that proves anything or even suggests an alternative theory. But, you are waiting for a prediction certifiably certain from others. And until then you will hope for a reprieve from being wrong with your WAGs.

I see.

Well duhhh. Dont need certifiably certain. Id settle for mildly accurate and comprehensive.

And ive told you before. There is no requirement in the science biz to provide an alternative theory before you take weed whacker to an existing one...
Can I just assume that you will NEVER understand that concept no matter how many times it is pointed out to you?

Sorry, this is unacceptable. It isn't enough to dethrone a scientific paradigm. At the end of the day, the data still has to be explained. And that means that you must offer an alternative that better explains said data. In other words, if not AGW, then what? Do you have ANYTHING like this? Anything at all?

THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE?????

What are you --- whining children? Should we still doing lobotomies to cure schizophrenia????

Sorry man -- but flawed theories are NOT allowed to stand if you SHOW they are flawed.
Getter a BETTER explanation for the data has NEVER been a prereq for blowing up a theory.

I've do that to MYSELF every time I attempt to solve a particular nasty problem. Do I OWE myself a better A BETTER solution before I chuck a faulty one?

Both of you need to grow up and accept the scientific method.

 

[PMZ]

Well duhhh. Dont need certifiably certain. Id settle for mildly accurate and comprehensive.

And ive told you before. There is no requirement in the science biz to provide an alternative theory before you take weed whacker to an existing one...
Can I just assume that you will NEVER understand that concept no matter how many times it is pointed out to you?

Sorry, this is unacceptable. It isn't enough to dethrone a scientific paradigm. At the end of the day, the data still has to be explained. And that means that you must offer an alternative that better explains said data. In other words, if not AGW, then what? Do you have ANYTHING like this? Anything at all?

THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE?????

What are you --- whining children? Should we still doing lobotomies to cure schizophrenia????

Sorry man -- but flawed theories are NOT allowed to stand if you SHOW they are flawed.
Getter a BETTER explanation for the data has NEVER been a prereq for blowing up a theory.

I've do that to MYSELF every time I attempt to solve a particular nasty problem. Do I OWE myself a better A BETTER solution before I chuck a faulty one?

Both of you need to grow up and accept the scientific method.

And you need to accept science.

 

[flacaltenn]

BTW:: In terms of this thread --- I've given you a half dozen good reasons why this OA theory is flawed IN ITS PREDICTIONS.. It's not a denial of the physics or the chemistry -- but a USE of the physics and chemistry and biology to show that the EFFECT is less than the zealots speculated..

Same with AGW -- I've stated a position a DOZEN times to most of you. Yet I bet that neither PMZ or Oroman or ANY of the warmers can restate my position on AGW correctly..

So --- why should I BOTHER elaborating on a position that NONE OF YOU have the LEAST BIT of interest in hearing?? I attempted to do that several times before and NOT ONE OF YOU could answer my questions or understand the principles involved.. I owe YOU in particular --- really not much. Only to the extent that YOU contribute meaty critique and insight to that discussion..

AnyONE????

 

[PMZ]

BTW:: In terms of this thread --- I've given you a half dozen good reasons why this OA theory is flawed IN ITS PREDICTIONS.. It's not a denial of the physics or the chemistry -- but a USE of the physics and chemistry and biology to show that the EFFECT is less than the zealots speculated..

Same with AGW -- I've stated a position a DOZEN times to most of you. Yet I bet that neither PMZ or Oroman or ANY of the warmers can restate my position on AGW correctly..

So --- why should I BOTHER elaborating on a position that NONE OF YOU have the LEAST BIT of interest in hearing?? I attempted to do that several times before and NOT ONE OF YOU could answer my questions or understand the principles involved.. I owe YOU in particular --- really not much. Only to the extent that YOU contribute meaty critique and insight to that discussion..

AnyONE????

Your amateur, what you wish to be true ideas, pale in credibility with the work of the IPCC, to those of us who reject conspiracy theory.

 

[flacaltenn]

I've also DEMONSTRATED to you where the IPCC has lied and skewed results AGAINST the preponderance of evidence to the contrary.. And NOT ONE OF YOU could refute that..

 

[PMZ]

I've also DEMONSTRATED to you where the IPCC has lied and skewed results AGAINST the preponderance of evidence to the contrary.. And NOT ONE OF YOU could refute that..

You have not. You have demonstrated a lack of statistical knowledge.

 

[westwall]

I've also DEMONSTRATED to you where the IPCC has lied and skewed results AGAINST the preponderance of evidence to the contrary.. And NOT ONE OF YOU could refute that..

You have not. You have demonstrated a lack of statistical knowledge.

No, flac DID demonstrate it. All you've demonstrated is a scientific knowledge base less than my 7 year old daughter.

 

[PMZ]

I've also DEMONSTRATED to you where the IPCC has lied and skewed results AGAINST the preponderance of evidence to the contrary.. And NOT ONE OF YOU could refute that..

You have not. You have demonstrated a lack of statistical knowledge.

No, flac DID demonstrate it. All you've demonstrated is a scientific knowledge base less than my 7 year old daughter.

What you wish was true is not reality. That's probably something a 7 year old has learned.

 

[mamooth]

It is true in his own reality. When you've defined everything to be part of the vast global socialist conspiracy, then everything is thus proven to be part of the vast global socialist conspiracy.

Trouble is, everyone living outside that reality just thinks you're crazy. And that's most of the planet.