Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- “the United States has suffered a “precipitous increase” in hurricane strikes”
- Thing Of The Past Returns
- “Impossible Heatwaves”
- Billion Dollar Electric Chargers
- “Not A Mandate”
- Up Is Down
- The Clean Energy Boom
- Climate Change In Spain
- The Clock Is Ticking
- “hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- COP29 Preview
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- A Giant Eyesore
- CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- Rats Jumping Off The Climate Ship
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- “False Claims” And Outright Lies”
- Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
Recent Comments
- arn on 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- Gordon Vigurs on Thing Of The Past Returns
- Greg in NZ on Thing Of The Past Returns
- Robertvd on Billion Dollar Electric Chargers
- arn on Thing Of The Past Returns
- conrad ziefle on “Impossible Heatwaves”
- Greg in NZ on “Impossible Heatwaves”
- czechlist on “Impossible Heatwaves”
- arn on Up Is Down
- arn on Up Is Down
I have answered this many times: Childish avoidance behavior. The IPCC-sponsored climate scientists have made a world-class mess, and their egos will not let them consider they have been incompetent (yes, that is what it comes down to, not just wrong but incompetent), throughout their very-successful careers. And they know they have all of our institutions behind them, all suborned for their sake. How can so many admit these things? It is a suborned generation, and the successor to a suborned generation. And the incompetence goes far beyond cimate science, across all of the earth and life sciences, and that stretches all the way back to Darwin. The scaffolding of scientific explanation is a Rube Goldberg contraption, speculation piled upon false assumption, that cannot withstand actual honest physical observation anymore. Climate science is just the first to be widely outed.
As a measure of Huffman’s expertise, let’s note that he thinks he has disproven plate tectonics, and that he’s found the lost city of Atlantis. He self-publishes his kooky ideas because, I guess, no real publisher will offer them.
http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/hdhsciences
Stop the presses!
Pot meets kettle
RTF
I don’t know.
I am still waiting to hear how a theory that specifically predicted less snow,
was made to predict more snow without being, itself, changed.
Yes there is a reason.
1. They have improved since 1988. In the 70s we had models that predicted the radar cross section
of an aircraft. They were not that great, but good enough to build the F117. Models improved as we learned how to predict the returns from curved surfaces. the result was the B2. Models improved even more as we came to understand the returns from more complex shapes and the effects of microscopic discontinuites in the surface.. the result the F22.
2. They are better than the alternative.
In other words, they are complete garbage.
As soon as climate scientists got into the prediction business, the only important standard for testing ‘improvement’ is their ability to forecast. Can the newer models more accurately predict global temperature trends in shorter time frames or not?
You can model the interaction of Radar with the surface of an airplane.
You can even model the influence of gravity on far away planets, suns and whole galaxies.
Models of the Earth’s climate, however, are another matter, and even if we ignored
the facts that they are loaded with probably incorrect assumptions, and missing
many significant variables, the resolution, and basic accuracy of these models is shown by history, now, to be
insufficient for the purpose for which they are created.
I’m sure they would be quite accurate if we were only several light years away from Earth.
You talked about Airplanes not climate which is far more complex.
You have slipped a long ways these days.
“2. They are better than the alternative.”
Do you mean that models are better than empirical data? Or do you mean that models are better than humbly admitting that our knowledge of climate is nascent and unformed?
There is no evidence they are better than the alternative. An alternative might be to look at the linear trend for the last 100 years and assume it will continue.
Natural variation explains what is going on in the globe. The alternative, that is, climate models, cannot duplicate what nature does. Man is no where near ready to say he understands the actions of nature. So, the climate models man makes from that inadequate viewpoint are equally as inadequate. The programs created from that inadequate viewpoint do not magically improve to matching nature and then add understanding as to man’s effect on nature just because it’s in a computer. Computers don’t have minds that improve on what man understands. A computer output is equal only to what humans put into it.
It is shortsighted, unthinking, uneducated, and really, foolish, to think just because something comes from a computer it is super human information.
But some are that fool.
for a start, it would help if you would plot the GISS data into a GISS model projection.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp-dts/from:1997/plot/gistemp-dts/from:1997/trend
what you are doing, is garbage.
I’ve done that about 500 times. Do you need a private babysitter?
SOD seems to be a dope… Even using the warmist dataset available – GISS – his own plot shows that the IPCC over predicts warming by nearly double. Shift your start year forward by 1-3 years and even that small amount of warming almost completely disappears.
The GISS data you have plotted appears to be “GISTEMP dTs global mean (extrapolated).
From what I can find out, this is a land-ocean dataset, extrapolated from land stations and the figures seem higher than “normal” GISTEMP.
Also, normal GISS is relative to 1951-80, whereas the above graph appears to be relative to 1979-83.
N.B. the above is a reply to “sod”, not Stephen Goddard.
And GISS temp (adjusted) is not garbage? Have they only just let you out of prison or something?
Odd how manmade global warming believers continue to emphasize GISTemp, the data set that passes through the hands of an activist.
AGW hypothesis assumes, middle troposphere should warm 1.2 times more than GISS, or any other surface temperature set.
So critcizing GISS vs. UAH comparison is like alarmist hammering his own finger.
GISS Temp?…………..oh no, not that one again.
FFS, climate models, better to consult the National Enquirer, btw has anybody made contact with James Hansen ‘on the other side’ yet?
Btw, Steve, City 3-1, still playing crap but winning.
All the matches I’ve watched today have been sleepers.
Wigan vs Stoke (2-2) sounded pretty good on the radio this afternoon, but the sumariser was Stuart Hall who can make the opening of curtains sound exciting…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Hall_%28presenter%29
As for climate models – the only reason to take notice is the funding they seem to earn, nothing much on the results.
Some good uns Sunday tho’:-)
Sleepers…..
Good thing you didn’t watch Alabama vs. Michigan. Michigan looked like a Division II team. Even their uniforms looked like it.
The climate computer models have made predictions. These predictions have turned out to be false. What more does one need to know if one believes that prediction in science is important?
But if one does need more: consider that computer models try to predict the rise and fall of the stock market which is much simpler than the planetary climate and yet we hear of no computer model that really works for any lenght of time. Trying to model a chaotic system like the earth’s climate is a pipe dream at best. Add to that observation bias and it is even worse.
But it makes for good fiction!
Steven has been making false predictions about arctic sea ice over the last couple of years.
Sea ice has constantly moved the opposite direction that he said it would.
The same people who applaud Steven Goddard, when he writes some new nonsense, are extremely critical about a model from the 80s.
n contrast to Goddard, all the Giss model got the basic direction right….
Yeah, Whatever, Son Of Daft!
the name of this blog is 2real climate” and i am really astonished by the amount of thought of work that is put into blog posts and reader replies.
keep on all this great work!
See above your comment here! 😆
Are you having reading difficulties?
the name of this blog is 2real climate
Perhaps english is not your mother tongue?
The name of the blog is ‘Real Science’ – it’s in big letters at the top of the page.
I’m not sure I see the point of an anonymous troll (SOD) yelling Steve is wrong Steve is wrong! repeatedly without any argument or data analysis or citation to back up the claim. Anyone who is sitting on the fence who reads SOD’s stuff will just assume he is an idiot and this may suggest to that person which side has the greater number of fools.
We should have sympathy for our warmist friends. That sort of self hate has to be difficult to deal with.
Probably! errr something like that!
Didn’t sod used to be coherent at least?
I don’t know, ask him, her or it, or anyone else here? But I would most likely err probably agree with ya, Maybeeee! 😆
Will, you have clearly not yet appreciated the “beauty” and “grandeur” of what is happening here. The point of all this is that you and Steven are wrong by definition; thus, reasons are irrelevant to this debate. What is important is that you continue to be told this “fact” until you start to accept it.
Only then can you proceed with the final step of your re-education, which is to be told to your face that you do not, strictly speaking, “exist”. In other words, you must be told the uncomfortable “truth” that you are a figment of your own imagination.
The sooner you become comfortable with believing this last proposition, the sooner you can finally join “civilization” as a productive and useful citizen, like sod.
RTF
sod says: September 1, 2012 at 11:40 pm
“Steven has been making false predictions about arctic sea ice over the last couple of years.”
Here we go with the cherries again! Failure of skeptics’ forecasts are seen as confirmation of alarmist beleifs, and yet failure of alarmist forecasts is also seen as confirmation. In other words, they have a non falsifiable hypothesis, which automatically falsifies it in the eyes of the rest of us.
How is it you know the GHG portion of the models are wrong, and not that they might be underestimating unforeseen factors, especially air pollution and global dimming?
I thought you would be busy setting up a booth at the DNC! How’s the weather in Charlotte this morning? 😉
Should be quite the rally at the ‘Bank of America Stadium’, do you have your press credentials yet?