The Bible and aliens

[Ben Dhyan]

If you saw pg. 4 of my link you are in serious denial!

I saw it, what has page 4 got to do with humans?
Ok, if go to the next page on forcings, I see the claim. This has been debunked. Check out Dr. Curry and climate forcings?

Dr. Judith Curry speaks out on climate science’s fatal flaw – the failure to explore and understand uncertainty

http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/files/currycv.pdf

 

[robocop (actually)]

We are getting off topic, but here's what.

In about 1980, 19 models that had just included natural factors, that had been in range virtually the whole time, on 6 continents, stopped working.

The 50 or so models that included human activity, which calculated it from 1900, all decided that temperature would differ around 1980. All of the data matches with these 50 after 1980 (and before 1980 because the human activity wasn't significant then), and none of it matches with the natural models. If you look at the range, you can see that there is a huge separation! This is not extrapolation!

 

[Ben Dhyan]

We are getting off topic, but here's what.

In about 1980, 19 models that had just included natural factors, that had been in range virtually the whole time, on 6 continents, stopped working.

The 50 or so models that included human activity, which calculated it from 1900, all decided that temperature would differ around 1980. All of the data matches with these 50 after 1980 (and before 1980 because the human activity wasn't significant then), and none of it matches with the natural models. If you look at the range, you can see that there is a huge separation! This is not extrapolation!

You are a babe wrt climate science....the models all failed to predict the pause, and predictions have gotten further from reality as time goes on....

Seriously, here is an actual an explanation about why the IPCC models miss the mark.....CLIMATE MODELS for the layman, by Prof Curry. If you disagree with any part of it, explain what it is and please quote the offending material and provide page number...

http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2017/02/Curry-2017.pdf

 

[robocop (actually)]

Why don't you summarize it... There are so many doubters that I just don't think it's worthwhile to bother with new data when it's all been said already.

I have never heard a rational debunking of climate science since my post. I looked at that Judith Curry and she talked about one model when there were over 50! Obviously this information is obsolete... why should I read the rest of your linkings?

Case closed.

 

[robocop (actually)]

I can't believe I wasted my time with the whole Judith Curry article!

 

[robocop (actually)]

Ha ha find me one worthwhile sentence in the whole thing!

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Why don't you summarize it... There are so many doubters that I just don't think it's worthwhile to bother with new data when it's all been said already.

I have never heard a rational debunking of climate science since my post. I looked at that Judith Curry and she talked about one model when there were over 50! Obviously this information is obsolete... why should I read the rest of your linkings?

Case closed.

Unfortunately your ignorance of climate science is exposed right away, I am afraid there is little I can do other than ask that you inform yourself in order to understand what is being said to you wrt climate change in order we can have a meaningful exchange. GCMs are the IPCC models, and they are all covered in said article. The definition of IPCC GCM is here..What is a GCM?

Now be a good student and read the article again. if you find a new disagreement, then please quote the text and provide page number and your explanation so I can address it.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I can't believe I wasted my time with the whole Judith Curry article!

Is that meant to be your scientifically based rebuttal of the Professor's work?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Ha ha find me one worthwhile sentence in the whole thing!

Another profound rebuttal, but you ignored my request to quote anything there which you disagree with and your explanation. Oh, and provide the page number?

 

[robocop (actually)]

No no the Judith Curry article was pure hearsay and there're too many such articles to debunk them all. The fact that none of these people ever become famous should be telling enough. I can't change the whole public opinion, but I would be happy if you pick any sentence at random or on purpose in Judith's article as what I can use for my rebuttal and I will debunk it.

For instance, she says that those scientists who oppose mainstream climate science get treated poorly. Well, if I said that Saturn's rings were wedding rings for Uranus just because my funding got turned off does not mean a shred of evidence that my statement was scientific. Science isn't perfect, but the dominating ideas for the time being are always more viable.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No no the Judith Curry article was pure hearsay and there're too many such articles to debunk them all. The fact that none of these people ever become famous should be telling enough. I can't change the whole public opinion, but I would be happy if you pick any sentence at random or on purpose in Judith's article as what I can use for my rebuttal and I will debunk it.

For instance, she says that those scientists who oppose mainstream climate science get treated poorly. Well, if I said that Saturn's rings were wedding rings for Uranus just because my funding got turned off does not mean a shred of evidence that my statement was scientific. Science isn't perfect, but the dominating ideas for the time being are always more viable.

Haha, it is not hearsay, she wrote it for non-scientists (laymen) who have an interest but do not have the scientific expertise to understand the debate going on wrt science of climate change. She explains it in layman's language, and can provide scientific principles and logical evidence for all she explains. Unfortunately, as you show so clearly, you do not even understand that! The document is not something you read to believe or not believe, it is to provide understanding as to where both sides of the debate stand. As I keep asking, point out any scientific evidence in the article that you think is in error so I can analyze where you are coming from, please quote the text and page number.

Hand waving does not count as scientific or logical debate.

 

[robocop (actually)]

OK. I didn't realize it. But I still looked at all the climate model pdfs in that MIT opencourseware course and found it irrefutable.

Bytheway moderators, I am perfectly OK debating on this thread, especially with ben d.

Since I gave you short shrift, I will look at all your posts in detail later on.

 

[robocop (actually)]

She is scientifically respected. I take that back.

If you can't wait for me to read the whole Curry-2017.pdf, let me respond to her executive summary (I've read everything else but this pdf):

• GCMs have not been subject to the rigorous verification and validation that is the norm for engineering and regulatory science.

Of course, that and the human brain are the most complex scientific systems we know of. Yet the pdf I showed you is scientifically incontrovertible to within the means of the statistics.

• There are valid concerns about a fundamental lack of predictability in the complex nonlinear climate system.

I got my master's degree in math with emphasis on differential equations. Yes there are unknowns, but the AGW models work and the natural ones don't. As far as it can be measured, by taking a limit with smaller and smaller cubes the MIT course assures me that these differential equations can be modeled as close as possible... that is except with the unknowns.

• There are numerous arguments supporting the conclusion that climate models are not fit for the purpose of identifying with high confidence the proportion of the 20th century warming that was human-caused as opposed to natural.

Again, along with the human brain these are the two hardest things to model, yet my link shows clearly that at 1980 in 6 continents only the human-caused models worked.

• There is growing evidence that climate models predict too much warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Right, that is to say it is moving closer to the bottom of the range. But it is in range, and until statistical such fluctuations are understandable. The data is not perfect either, but the models are in range.

• The climate model simulation results for the 21st century reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) do not include key elements of climate variability, and hence are no t useful as projections for how the 21st century climate will actually evolve.

That would be true; I'll have to see what she means.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

OK. I didn't realize it. But I still looked at all the climate model pdfs in that MIT opencourseware course and found it irrefutable.

Bytheway moderators, I am perfectly OK debating on this thread, especially with ben d.

Since I gave you short shrift, I will look at all your posts in detail later on.

Fine....

 

[Ben Dhyan]

She is scientifically respected. I take that back.

If you can't wait for me to read the whole Curry-2017.pdf, let me respond to her executive summary (I've read everything else but this pdf):

• GCMs have not been subject to the rigorous verification and validation that is the norm for engineering and regulatory science.

Of course, that and the human brain are the most complex scientific systems we know of. Yet the pdf I showed you is scientifically incontrovertible to within the means of the statistics.

• There are valid concerns about a fundamental lack of predictability in the complex nonlinear climate system.

I got my master's degree in math with emphasis on differential equations. Yes there are unknowns, but the AGW models work and the natural ones don't. As far as it can be measured, by taking a limit with smaller and smaller cubes the MIT course assures me that these differential equations can be modeled as close as possible... that is except with the unknowns.

• There are numerous arguments supporting the conclusion that climate models are not fit for the purpose of identifying with high confidence the proportion of the 20th century warming that was human-caused as opposed to natural.

Again, along with the human brain these are the two hardest things to model, yet my link shows clearly that at 1980 in 6 continents only the human-caused models worked.

• There is growing evidence that climate models predict too much warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Right, that is to say it is moving closer to the bottom of the range. But it is in range, and until statistical such fluctuations are understandable. The data is not perfect either, but the models are in range.

• The climate model simulation results for the 21st century reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) do not include key elements of climate variability, and hence are no t useful as projections for how the 21st century climate will actually evolve.

That would be true; I'll have to see what she means.

The thing is, when you say that the actual temperature warming trend meets those GCM predictions at the lower end, it means an increase in temperature of only about 1C by year 2100, hence there is no catastrophe. And it also means that climate sensitivity to CO2 is less than most of the models calculated, so these GCMs should be thrown out. but if you throw them out, no catastrophic global warming is going to occur...that is the dilemma for the IPCC. No catastrophic warming, no trillions of dollars for warming mitigation, no billions in climate research funds, the gravy chain is over for AGW activists.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Sounds interesting... will have to think about this soon.

You have my promise that I will always be intellectually honest.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Sounds interesting... will have to think about this soon.

You have my promise that I will always be intellectually honest.

I know you are robocop, but I know also that human civilization on this planet at this stage of evolution is a mixed bag, there is a lot of systemic corruption in all its institutions, political, educational, scientific, religious, media, etc., and we can not always trust what we are being led to believe, consensus reality is not actual reality, for reality is forever on the other side of mental representations. I too try to be always honest in my pursuit of understanding, the cosmos does not reveal its mysteries any other way, the means to an end is not different to that end, truth begets truth.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Amen to that!

My apologies for taking so long to get around to everything...

 

[robocop (actually)]

I'm sorry... I read her summaries... I just don't feel up to reading all that now.

It seems to me that she skirts around issues to strike a balance between defeating the status quo and appearing authentic. I don't see why it matters... for every one bad apple there are 100 good apples on the global warming bandwagon. My apologies for being unwilling to find and present solid evidence for rebuttals, debunking, and debate. I remain quite confident in the bandwagon.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I'm sorry... I read her summaries... I just don't feel up to reading all that now.

It seems to me that she skirts around issues to strike a balance between defeating the status quo and appearing authentic. I don't see why it matters... for every one bad apple there are 100 good apples on the global warming bandwagon. My apologies for being unwilling to find and present solid evidence for rebuttals, debunking, and debate. I remain quite confident in the bandwagon.

She, along with many other good climate scientists have been treated badly by the agw activists, called deniers, etc., for agw activists do not allow any scientific debate on the subject, they instead engage in 'astroturfing' the web and lobbying the scientific community.

If you are not familiar with the term 'astroturfing', the video following explains. But instead of big pharma, think UN IPCC AGW Science. This is not the way science was meant to work, freedom to present 'politically incorrect' science should be respected if correct human understanding is to unfold sooner rather than later.

And by the way, another example is the way Big Bang Theory devotees astroturf against steady state universe science, in particular the treatment of Halton Arp*. If you are not familiar with his theory, you may want to watch this video, as someone accomplished in maths, you should find it interesting. The theoretical summary begins around the 47 minute part.

* Halton Christian "Chip" Arp (March 21, 1927 -- December 28, 2013) was an American astronomer. He was known for his 1966 Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies, which (it was later realized) catalogues many examples of interacting and merging galaxies. Arp was also known as a critic of the Big Bang theory and for advocating a non-standard cosmology incorporating intrinsic redshift."