Remember me
▼ Content

Generating Climate Science



Page 1 of 3123>
Generating Climate Science12-10-2015 21:56
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
Finally, someone is pursuing a worthy endeavor.

trafn is trying his had at developing actual "Climate" science and I will help this effort in any way I can. This is, after all, my reason for posting in "Climate" fora.

Just to be clear to all the posters on this site, I would be elated to develop a set of falsifiable "Climate" models (that aren't false) and achieve instant fame and fortune as the Nobel Foundation flies out to wherever I happen to be to present me my prize in physics, as universities mob my door for the privilege of awarding me a PhD from their particular institution, as every organization from the IPCC to the Royal Academy of Science offers me $hundreds of thousands to give lectures and as political organizations and governments pay me $multi-millions to write papers to support their agendas.

The offer is open to anyone who wants to develop falsifiable "Climate" models that aren't false, I will gladly help in their development. Naturally I will share credit. There will be plenty of fame and fortune to go around.

trafn wrote: Once, we come to an agreement on this foundational model, or an acceptable variation of it, I will then proceed on to the falsifiable model for the greenhouse effect.

Excellent start.

As it is crucial to get our terms/definitions/semantics straight, I'd like to offer the following comments:

trafn wrote: Science: a body of knowledge which contains data about the physical world.

Would it be possible to call this something other than "science"? I would strongly suggest seizing this opportunity to approach this as a scientist developing new science and necessarily creating your own new terms for your new science rather than build confusion into your model by using terms that carry meaning other than yours.

For example, you want to define a body of data about the physical world. You could call it, say, the Terra Domain, written Td, (just an example). Our current science is a collection of models, not data. If you seek to redefine "science" in your model to be a collection of data then it will be confusing to explain any errors showing that science isn't science, if you see what I mean.

trafn wrote: Data: the collection of physical measurements by accepted methods that are accurate to an appropriate degree, reproducible, and sufficiently sensitive and specific for that which they are measuring.

I have an important question here. Is "Data" therefore intended to be only raw, unprocessed, unfudged, unmodified, unweighted, unadjusted data? It would be great if it were. Keep in mind that Global Warming has been entirely based on processed/fudged/modified/adjusted data with the math used for the calculations kept completely secret and with only the mandated conclusions presented that are not to be questioned.

trafn wrote:Climate: a collection of data measuring the variability of various physical characteristics of the atmosphere over several months, years, decades, centuries or longer periods of time (for comparison, see weather).

Here's the tough one. This version of "Climate" is no longer the physical, tangible reality you defined previously. You clarified for me previously that "Climate" is/was the tangible reality of the atmosphere, the hydrosphere and the biosphere, i.e. if I were to scoop some water out of Lake Tahoe then my hands would be wet from "Climate".

But now you are redefining "Climate" to be a particular set of data pertaining to any change in the atmosphere and not to any tangible reality. Data cannot warm, of course, and this leaves "Climate Change" to mean changes in your data...which probably shouldn't change, yes?

So I'd like to hammer down exactly what we plan to mean by the term "Climate." Maybe you want to keep "Climate" meaning the tangible reality and you want to create a data domain for "Climate" data, say Cd, just an example.

trafn wrote: Weather: a collection of data measuring the variability of various physical characteristics of the atmosphere over several weeks, days, hours, minutes, or shorter periods of time (for comparison, see climate).

Same concern about redefining existing terms. Isn't the weather the actual tangible reality present in the atmosphere at any given time? You don't need any data to have weather, do you? If it's pouring rain and someone asks you what the weather is like outside, you don't need to calculate any "variability" do you?

Maybe you want to create a specific dataset concerning weather data, perhaps written Wd, just an example, that contains all known raw, unfudged, unprocessed, unaltered, uncompromised, unweighted weather data.

In any event, it appears your end goal is to establish datasets. Am I right? It's great if you are, but we need to be clear in the model that this is what is being defined.

trafn wrote: FASIFIABLE MODEL:
Climate change science exists, as it is possible to collect climate data which varies over time.

Let me first say that I applaud your effort. This is great. This is sort of how it all starts. You've made a few errors in the logic, and we'll review those, but you are certainly on the right track.

First, you didn't create a falsifiable model. You created a logical argument and what you are calling your "model" is actually the conclusion you would like to achieve (you can't do that).

Second, the terms you defined don't lead to your (desired) conclusion. You have defined no relationships, but we can develop them.

If you wouldn't mind answering the questions I posed above, we can work on crafting a revision that will ultimately establish the "Climate" framework you seek.

I haven't forgotten that you want to get to the "greenhouse effect" and to have it be consistent with your "Climate Science" so let's build the "Climate" model such that we can flow right into creating an internally consistent "greenhouse effect" sub-model.

Thoughts?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-10-2015 00:03
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Hi IBdaMann,

First, thank you for taking the time for your thoughtful response to my post.

Now, to help anyone new to our discussion, please go to The SCIENCE of the "Greenhouse Effect" at the link below to read:

tranf's oringinal post concerning a falsifiable model for climate change science

This will make it easier for you to follow along. That said:


1. In reference to your questions concerning the definitions, for now I'd like to keep them as they are. I have a concern about getting "too technical" when discussing things like this in a public forum. I don't want anyone to feel left out, so for now I'd like to stick with the definitions as they are. If you'd like to suggest an alternative set, perhaps we can work with them in parallel as we develop the model. Also, I left out one definition:

Change: variation in data measurements over time.


2. Yes, I am trying to define things in terms of physically measurable data sets, which is what I think is one of the uniquely defining tools of science.


3. Perhaps I am mistaken, but for any theorem to be part of science, it must be falsifiable which means it must make claims that, if false, will show the theorem to be false. Popper does require that the falsifiability be done through a mathematical model, but I'm using a logical model here as have others in the past when working with falsifiable models. Given that logic is its own form of math (i.e. - "If A and B then C" boils down to "A + B = C") would it be all right to first work with the logical model and then proceed to a mathematical version? If so, then I can restate the model in a logical "A + B = C" format as follows:

"If it is possible to collect climate data and this climate data varies over time, then climate change science exists."

Where:

"A" = If is possible to collect climate data...
"+" = and...
"B" = this climate data varies over time,...
"=" = then...
"C" = climate change science exists.

Thoughts?


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
13-10-2015 09:43
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
This is great but I fear I'm just gonna be a lurker since I don't have the proper language (at least not in english) to provide anything truly useful and probably will confuse some users with my wording.

I have a question regarding this model presented by tranf.
"If it is possible to collect climate data and this climate data varies over time, then climate change science exists."


Wouldn't this include the data collected during Ice Ages for example, in which the climate data varied over a certain period of time? That example would validate that climate change science exists right?
13-10-2015 19:16
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Hi Totototo,

Yes, ice cores and other types of samples from previous ice ages and other historical periods are key components in the scientific framework of M2C2 (man-made climate change), and can be used as a fundamental resource when discussing the existence of climate change science.

As for validating (versus discussing) the existence of climate change science, that depends on how demanding the skeptic's/doubter's/denier's level of proof is, and whether or not you want to bother taking the time to convince them.

As for me, right now I'm in the "believer's" camp, but I still leave the door open to new information and other possibilities.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!

Edited on 13-10-2015 19:19
13-10-2015 20:51
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
Fair enough. Thanks for the answer.

Can someone explain to me in a simpler way the definition we agreed on regarding "Climate"? I didn't understand what IB said.
13-10-2015 21:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
trafn wrote: As for validating (versus discussing) the existence of climate change science, that depends on how demanding the skeptic's/doubter's/denier's level of proof is, and whether or not you want to bother taking the time to convince them.

You just stepped on a trip flare.

There is no "level of proof" required in science, and "evidence" has no role. Your above statement is false.

There is only one requirement: a falsifiable model that isn't false. Once you provide one, your science is validated. Until you do, it is not.

Once you have submitted your falsifiable model that isn't false to the scientific method, the rest of the world bears the full burden to show your model to be false.

trafn wrote: As for me, right now I'm in the "believer's" camp, but I still leave the door open to new information and other possibilities.

What specifically convinced you?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-10-2015 00:23
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Totototo - I not sure we have an agreed upon definition of climate, but the one I'm using here is a collection of data measuring the variability of various physical characteristics of the atmosphere over several months, years, decades, centuries or longer periods of time . I distinguish it from weather by defining weather as a collection of data measuring the variability of various physical characteristics of the atmosphere over several weeks, days, hours, minutes, or shorter periods of time. By my definitions, in both weather and climate, the same things are being measured, but in weather they're being measured over shorter periods of time, and in climate they're being measured over longer periods of time.

@IBdaMann - as for "level of proof," I wasn't talking about science. I was talking about the act of trying to reason with a denier which is more like performing an exorcism.

@IBdaMann - as for why I'm in the "believer's camp," it's because of the falsifiable model I already have and which we're working on in this thread, and about which I'm still waiting for your reply to my post (2 above).


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
15-10-2015 09:28
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
So... IBdaMann, what's your answer?
15-10-2015 15:20
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
Totototo wrote:
So... IBdaMann, what's your answer?

I told trafn in a pm that I would be getting to this soon. The system already ate my response (and I had put a lot of time into it).

But don't wait for me. Please post here what convinced you that Global Warming is real.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-10-2015 16:10
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann - as for me, I won't say that I'm 100% convinced that either GHG's, AGW or M2C2 are totally real, as I'm not 100% sure of what reality itself really is. Given all the acid I dropped back in the 70's (up to 3-4 times per week), you'd think I'd at least have a handle on that (oh, well).

But, I can say that I have crossed the 95% certainty level quite a while back on these issues which still leaves me a part-time skeptic, a holiday doubter, but not a denialist.

That said, even 5% fallibility can still be a real killer for any theorem. Just ask Thomas Andrews (1873 - 1912)


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!

Edited on 15-10-2015 16:11
15-10-2015 19:47
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
That's good to hear IB


I'm not convinced that it's real mainly because I'm not well informed. That's why I attend this forum and read everything I can about the subject, so I can make a personal judgement of it.

I'm mainly here to see how you guys come up with this model, so I won't be adding anything significant to the conversation. Sorry!
15-10-2015 20:14
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
Totototo wrote: I'm not convinced that it's real mainly because I'm not well informed.

Frankly, I think you do believe in Global Warming but that's mox-nix.

Totototo wrote: That's why I attend this forum and read everything I can about the subject, so I can make a personal judgement of it.

Do you normally dedicate time to learning about things you don't think are real?

Totototo wrote: I'm mainly here to see how you guys come up with this model,

Yes, I bet you are.

Totototo wrote: so I won't be adding anything significant to the conversation. Sorry!

So you will limit yourself to insignificant commentary?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-10-2015 20:55
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Totototo - please disregard that IBdaMann sometimes responds with impunity. You are more than welcome to participate and ask any questions you like.

@IBdaMann - is it macht nichts that the use of mox-nix results in macht nichts?


Edited on 15-10-2015 20:56
15-10-2015 21:21
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
trafn wrote: @Totototo - please disregard that IBdaMann sometimes responds with impunity. You are more than welcome to participate and ask any questions you like.

Totototo, please follow trafn's direction and feel free to post what you consider to be the most compelling Global Warming "evidence" you have found to date.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-10-2015 21:37
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Totototo - no Totototo, don't! It's a trap! (jeez, did that just sound like a line that was edited out of the Wizard of Oz?)

15-10-2015 23:17
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
Oh man, just when I thought we were getting civilized. Sorry almighty lord IBdaMann. Sorry for being curious. This is my last comment I swear.

Frankly, I think you do believe in Global Warming but that's mox-nix.


What makes you think that?
15-10-2015 23:50
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Totototo - really, don't. Just ignore him. Trust me. You're fine as you are.
16-10-2015 00:00
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
Ok, it's just frustrating. That's all.
16-10-2015 00:31
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Totototo - I know exactly what you're saying, but this is still a great place to learn about M2C2 (man-made climate change). If you find someone's heading in a direction that you don't understand and their explanations seem either too difficult to understand or even wrong, just address your questions and comments to someone else. There are people who fully believe in M2C2 here, there are people who partly believe and don't believe in M2C2 (agree with some but not all of it), and then there are those who totally disagree with it. Take from it what works best for you.


PS - once you get a better understanding, you'll find that even the people who disagree with you have very interesting things to say that you can even learn from. I do all the time here.
Edited on 16-10-2015 00:33
16-10-2015 15:48
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
trafn wrote: 1. In reference to your questions concerning the definitions, for now I'd like to keep them as they are.

As you wish, but you have implicitly signed the waiver acknowledging the risks of keeping the terms as they are and accepting full responsibility for any backtracking, backpedaling, retracting and rescinding that will be required as a result. A copy of this waiver will be kep on file.

trafn wrote: I have a concern about getting "too technical" when discussing things like this in a public forum.

It appears to a neutral observer that you have a problem placing clarity and precision over confusing, albeit more appealing, words, e.g. "science" when it means "data." This has the warning signs of a forced, predetermined conclusion...but the floor is yours. It's your opportunity to surprise us with brilliance.

trafn wrote: 2. Yes, I am trying to define things in terms of physically measurable data sets,

Foul. Datasets are not measureable.

You must decide whether "Climate" is 1) a physical, tangible reality or 2) a completely notional concept of trends, averages and statistics.

You can't go to a physical, tangible reality, e.g. a lake, and say "Look at that trend!" Similarly, a collection of statistics cannot increase in temperature. Physical, tanglible realities are measureable and are not the collection of their measurements. Datasets are not tangible and are thus not measureable.

You need to specify, right here, right now, before you go any further, which one "Climate" is. It cannot be both. Either tangible or notional.

trafn wrote: 3. Perhaps I am mistaken, but for any theorem to be part of science, it must be falsifiable which means it must make claims that, if false, will show the theorem to be false.

Falsifiability is not science; it is a requirement for science.

Theorems fall within the domain of math and logic. The science equivalent of a theorem/proof is an hypothesis. It works like this:

Math/Logic starts with axioms that are assumed to be true.

Science starts with a falsifiable model that is assumed to be true.

Math/Logic applies assumptions to the axiom set and, through formal logic, generates theorems.

Science applies assumptions to the falsifiable model and, through formal logic, generates an hypothesis, a prediction about nature given those particular assumptions, e.g. given the model of gravity and the assumption that photons have mass, that black hole should bend the light path of the star behind it.

So once an hypothesis is generated, a test is tailored to validate that prediction. If the prediction does not come to pass, the hypothesis and the model are falsified and found to be in need of correction.

trafn wrote: Popper does require that the falsifiability be done through a mathematical model,

Popper is dead. He is no longer of any consequence.

trafn wrote: Given that logic is its own form of math

Formal logic is a set of rules.
Math is based completely on formal logic.

trafn wrote: would it be all right to first work with the logical model and then proceed to a mathematical version?

Absolutely!

trafn wrote: If so, then I can restate the model in a logical "A + B = C" format as follows:

No. Don't use math until you wish to proceed to the mathematical version.

Your statement would be correctly written A^B -> C


trafn wrote: "If it is possible to collect climate data and this climate data varies over time, then climate change science exists."

We need to put this on hold until you decide the form of "Climate". If "Climate" is data then one would not collect "Climate data"...one would collect "Climate."

If "Climate" is data then the only "Climate Change" would be number fudging and data cooking.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
16-10-2015 18:01
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann - lots to relpy to here on your most recent post:

1. Will read and sign said waiver immediately.

2. Actually, I find when computations get too comlpex, it adds to the error rate. Keeping things simple does take longer, but we get to check things more thoroughly as we go along.

3. You're right about the datasets. I should have said something like "measured data which has been organized into relevant sets of that data."

4. Popper's posthumous irrelevance is only a non-issue as long as he didn't die owing you any money. Personally, he's still into me for 5 "c" notes.

5. I will restate as as A^B -> C, where:

"A" = If is possible to collect climate data...
"^" = and...
"B" = this climate data varies over time,...
"->" = then...
"C" = climate change science exists.

6. The difference between climate and climate change would be this:

a. Climate - sets of atmospheric data repeatedly collected using the same procedures over a specific region and a specified time period.

b Climate change - a measurable significant difference in climate data sets that were taken using the same procedures over the same specific region and over the same time period.
17-10-2015 06:45
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
trafn wrote:1. Will read and sign said waiver immediately.

Great. Remember that when you write "science" you mean "data."

trafn wrote:
5. I will restate as as A^B -> C, where:

"A" = If is possible to collect climate data...

...but you just agreed that "Climate" is the data, so one does not collect "Climate" data but instead, one just collects "Climate." Ergo: A = "Climate" is collected.

trafn wrote: "B" = this climate data varies over time,...

Nope. The data never changes, hence "Climate" never changes. Measurements taken at different times or at different places may differ, but data is static, it never changes.

I sense that this is a problem since you want specific wording to come out of this, right?

trafn wrote: "C" = climate change science exists.

What we have at the end of this run is A^B -> Climates differ.

trafn wrote:a. Climate - sets of atmospheric data repeatedly collected using the same procedures over a specific region and a specified time period.

So no ocean data, no ground surface data, no ice data, no polar bear data, ...nothing beyond the measurable attributes of the atmosphere, yes? There's a word for this already: "weather."

So we have actually A^B -> the weather changes ( = the atmosphere varies)

trafn wrote: b Climate change - a measurable significant difference in climate data sets that were taken using the same procedures over the same specific region and over the same time period.

What constitutes "significant"?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-10-2015 12:45
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Surely everybody (almost) agrees that climate on whatever scal changes.

Vertually everybody agrees that humanity increases temperatures locally and on a world scale.

There is a general consensus that increased CO2 increases climate temperature.

By how much is the question.

Personally I am not much concearned even about the answer to the last question. I take the numbers from the predictions and look at them in the light of how much impact they will have on human sciety over the time scale they are predicted.

I see the huge impact of the efforts to avoid it as a big problem.
17-10-2015 16:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
Tim the plumber wrote:
[color=blue]Surely everybody (almost) agrees that climate on whatever scal changes.

It's just that everyone makes up their own spiritual meaning of "Climate".

Tim the plumber wrote:There is a general consensus that increased CO2 increases climate temperature.

Amongst climate lemmings, yes.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-10-2015 17:54
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann - first, I'd like to start off by saying how nice it is to see someone else enjoying Tim the Plumber.

As to your other post:

I will now restate A^B -> C as (here we go round the mulberry bush...):

"A" = If it is possible to collect atmospheric data sets using scientifically accepted methods which measure climate...
"^" = and...
"B" = these climate related data set measurements vary over time,...
"->" = then...
"C" = climate change science exists.

Although, I must admit that I do somehow like the "climate differs" conclusion as it suits my absurd sense of humor.

As for the polar bears, don't confuse the overall picture of effects caused by M2C2 versus climate itself.

As for what's significant, it all depends on the state of the accepted art at the time regarding the accuracy of measurement methodologies (which like climate, do change over time).


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
17-10-2015 19:23
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
[quote]trafn wrote:I will now restate A^B -> C as (here we go round the mulberry bush...):
trafn, thanks for the prompt return of the signed waiver.

OK, I am going to write out what I think you are trying to express. I know, I know, you want to keep it simple, so we'll just establish a definition module, file it with the waiver and only pull it out when necessary.

<definition module>
d@T = a specified time interval.

QI = an initial absolute time/date stamp.

QF = a final absolute time/date stamp equal to QI + d@T

note: measure and measurement are different

mnx is a standard, defined measure n of x, example for measure #1 (e.g. pressure) of atmosphere a, would be expressed m1a.

p(mnx) is a standard, defined set of procedures for mnx
ASSUMPTION: all p are currently possibe/accomplishable with given equipment

mnx[t,l] is a measurement of mnx at time t and location l according to p(mnx)

D(mnx) is a dataset of all measurements of all measures 1 through n of x

A = earth's atmosphere

Science of X = D(X)

Climate = all mnA

Science of Climate = D(mnA)

</definition module>

A = p(mnx) is possible
B = D(mnA[t1,l]) <> D(mnA[t2,l])
C = Science of mnA exists.

trafn's theorem A^B -> C

Is this accurate?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-10-2015 20:00
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann - my brain hurts, stop that! Didn't I already tell you I suck at calculus.

Photo of me taking a calculus class:


Edited on 17-10-2015 20:07
18-10-2015 05:47
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
trafn wrote:

That's my standard pic when someone is less than clear in trying to explain the "greenhouse effect." I haven't used it here in this forum but historically I use that to highlight when someone is avoiding the part where thermal energy is magically created.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-10-2015 05:59
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann - now, now, just settle down there. I think someone's been up past their bedtime a little too late. Why don't you and your favorite teddy bear LoT's just scamper up to bed right now. It's time for la-la land.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
19-10-2015 04:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10243)
trafn wrote:
@IBdaMann - first, I'd like to start off by saying how nice it is to see someone else enjoying Tim the Plumber.

As to your other post:

I will now restate A^B -> C as (here we go round the mulberry bush...):

"A" = If it is possible to collect atmospheric data sets using scientifically accepted methods which measure climate...
"^" = and...
"B" = these climate related data set measurements vary over time,...
"->" = then...
"C" = climate change science exists.

Although, I must admit that I do somehow like the "climate differs" conclusion as it suits my absurd sense of humor.

As for the polar bears, don't confuse the overall picture of effects caused by M2C2 versus climate itself.

As for what's significant, it all depends on the state of the accepted art at the time regarding the accuracy of measurement methodologies (which like climate, do change over time).


I think the problem is the circular nature of the definition of the word 'climate' in all premises and the conclusion. Under that light, all you have built is a affirmation of the antecedent. Thus, the syllogism fails.

In logical terms, you've put the cart before the horse.
19-10-2015 15:19
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Into the Night - interestingly brief conclusion you've posted that the syllogism fails. It would be much more informative if, instead of using such brief, unsubstantiated accusations, that you made an effort to respond at a level consistent with that of the post which you are critiquing. In other words, how about backing up your claim with a little more than an implied "because I said so." If not, I'll be left with no recourse but to assume your post above to simply be your way of making an uninformative response.
19-10-2015 15:57
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
trafn wrote:
@Into the Night - interestingly brief conclusion you've posted that the syllogism fails. It would be much more informative if, instead of using such brief, unsubstantiated accusations, that you made an effort to respond at a level consistent with that of the post which you are critiquing. In other words, how about backing up your claim with a little more than an implied "because I said so." If not, I'll be left with no recourse but to assume your post above to simply be your way of making an uninformative response.


Into The Night,

Don't worry. This is just a case of the pot trying to call the kettle black.

Trafn does not seem to need any evidence of anything ever.
19-10-2015 16:19
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@no one in particular - does anyone else hear a fly? I'm sure I just heard a fly buzzing around in here somewhere?

Would someone PLEASE close the door and stop letting in all those flies!


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
20-10-2015 04:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10243)
trafn wrote:
@Into the Night - interestingly brief conclusion you've posted that the syllogism fails. It would be much more informative if, instead of using such brief, unsubstantiated accusations, that you made an effort to respond at a level consistent with that of the post which you are critiquing. In other words, how about backing up your claim with a little more than an implied "because I said so." If not, I'll be left with no recourse but to assume your post above to simply be your way of making an uninformative response.


Assume away. I have said why the syllogism fails. Affirming the antecedent is a basic error in logic. If you wish to ignore the rules of logic, that's your problem. I am simply pointing out where the confusion apparently lies. It is not an accusation. It is not an ad hominem. It is the structure of logic that is being used.

You say this is uninformative, but I am trying to inform you why there is a confusion here.
20-10-2015 04:34
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Into the Night - that's kinda like saying there's a typo in your prior post without specifying why and just repeating there's a typo in your post.

I'm asking for you to be more specific about you conclusion. If you're unable to do so, please say so and I'll stop asking.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
20-10-2015 04:53
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
Into the Night wrote: Affirming the antecedent is a basic error in logic.


As long as we are being clear, and clarifying, and adding clarity...

<clarification>

"Affirming the Antecedent" is perfectly valid, as is "Denying the Consequent."

Fallacies stem from "Denying the Antecedent" and from "Affirming the Consequent."

</clarification>


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-10-2015 05:32
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann - continuing from the thread "Key threats to climate change":

You stated:

A = p(mnx) is possible
B = D(mnA[t1,l]) <> D(mnA[t2,l])
C = Science of mnA exists.

trafn's theorem A^B -> C


Can you please translate this into something I can understand.
20-10-2015 06:14
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
trafn wrote:
@IBdaMann - continuing from the thread "Key threats to climate change":

You stated:

A = p(mnx) is possible
B = D(mnA[t1,l]) <> D(mnA[t2,l])
C = Science of mnA exists.

trafn's theorem A^B -> C


Can you please translate this into something I can understand.


Sure: p(mnx) is simply the set of established procedures for measure x of n. You wanted to establish that there were regular, standard procedures for taking measurements. p(mnx) ecompasses all those procedures. That's all you need to know.

Since you have established today that all you are concerned with is the earth's atmosphere A, then today you could use the notation p(mnA). Later, when "Climate" C means something more than atmosphere A, you can use the notation p(mnC). It simply means there exists a set of established procedures.

Later, when scientists need to dig deeper into the math(s), they'll have this notation to allow them to do that. For example, assume that one of your measures is atmospheric pressure, and let's also say it's your first measure in your list; i.e. m1 = atmospheric pressure. When referring to the "climate" procedures for atmospheric pressure you would write p(m1A). If you were to see p(m7O) you would know that this is the set of procedures for whatever measure seven is for the Ocean (you would look up measure seven in the procedures manual and follow those procedures).

Now take that one easy step further. When you follow the procedures for p(m7O) you will get many datapoints for that measure,i.e. different locations (l) at different times (t). So p(m7O)[t,l] denotes the measurement you got at [t,l] after having followed the strict procedures in the manual for p(m7O).

All those datapoints combined will comprise your dataset D(m7O). A single datapoint in that dataset taken at time t5 and at location l32 would be expressed D(m7O)[t5,l32]. Your overall "Climate" dataset would just be generically expressed as D(mnC).

Inside the parentheses you see "mnC" which represents all the measures constituting 'Climate." In your waiver you specified that "science" is a dataset and that "Climate" science is a "Climate" dataset. Ergo, D(mnx) is the expression for "Climate Science" in your model.

Since you have established precedures for compiling the data, which you call "science" ...you show that "Climate Science" exists (once you have collected the data) and we have your signed waiver on file for when someone asks about semantics.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-10-2015 17:07
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann - yaaaaaaaaaawn! Okay, very nice work there, except where you stated in the beginning "That's all you need to know. "

Actually, you see, I'll let you in on a little secret if you can keep it just between you and me. No one else here knows this (quick, lean in closer while I whisper) but I'm not as smart as I think I am (cue tiniest violin in the world as well as muffled sob and tear tracks).

So, comrade Marxist (a new and exciting fact recently established here), would you please rephrase your explanation in a manner that I can understand (hint: let's try for a college freshman level explanation for those who so far have only gotten through basic algebra sans geometry or trig, and are currently enrolled in Physics 101, Biology 101, and Chemistry 101 - including all the associated labs - but have yet to go any further [what cheeky bastards; taking 3 science classes in the same semester; any wagers they'll fail at least one of them?]).


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!

Edited on 20-10-2015 17:08
20-10-2015 21:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10243)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Affirming the antecedent is a basic error in logic.


As long as we are being clear, and clarifying, and adding clarity...

<clarification>

"Affirming the Antecedent" is perfectly valid, as is "Denying the Consequent."

Fallacies stem from "Denying the Antecedent" and from "Affirming the Consequent."

</clarification>


Yes. Quite. Thank you. Guess I'm a bit dyslexic today. I meant Affirming the Consequent.
Page 1 of 3123>





Join the debate Generating Climate Science:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
About the damage that Obama did to science.13511-12-2019 23:14
Argument against AGW science314-08-2019 20:51
Objectivity of Environmental Science109-08-2019 02:13
Still No Climate Change Science1111-07-2019 04:23
Trump Administration's Attempts to Limit Climate Change Science 'Like Designing Cars Without Seat128-05-2019 20:13
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact