Those are pretty pictures and animations.

I still don't see anything near a repeatable result or repeatable conclusion.

I want an ice cream cone, not turkey bacon with quinoa and bok choy.

Michael

Another bit of beautiful rendering ... an amuse-bouche or a palate cleanse. 

Could you believe that "Our solar system is a vortex"?

17 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Jonathan,

It's funny. When you ask for repeatable scientific results re Climate Change, you always get blah blah blah and they never use the term "repeatable results." 

It's like going into a small eatery and saying, "Do you have an ice cream cone?"

And the person says, "Here's some tasty steamed octopus."

You ask, "What about an ice cream cone?"

The person says, "Look at these green beans and mashed potatoes. How big a portion do you want?"

"But I want an ice cream cone."

"Well, you've come to the right place. Our mac and cheese is amazing."

"Don't you have ice cream cones?"

"Only stupid people think we don't have hamburgers."

"You really don't have ice cream cones?"

"True believer idiot. The dinner rolls are right in front of you. God, some people..." He throws a stack of menus in your face--ones that do not list ice cream cones...

And on it goes. It's amazing to watch.

 

Michael

It is indeed amazing to watch. Billy seems to think that it's still working, even after we've told him several times that we know exactly what he's doing and that it isn't working.

19 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Those are pretty pictures and animations.

I still don't see anything near a repeatable result or repeatable conclusion.

I want an ice cream cone, not turkey bacon with quinoa and bok choy.

 

Michael

Billy doesn't have the science. In fact, he likes to mock the term "the science," tee hee hee. He hasn't seen it, he doesn't have access to it, and, even if he did, he'd have no interest whatsoever in examining it critically. Doing so would be cultish. Questioning scientists' claims and being critical of them is "denial." Only bumpkins do that -- those lesser Others™. Instead, he prefers to trust activists who assure him that the science supports their conclusions. That's how real science is done, not via your childish notions of the scientific method. Tee hee hee. You're such a rube. You're so far beneath the informed elite. You need to have your life managed by your betters.

I thought that it might be time again to share one of my favorite things about Climate Doom and the alleged consensus.

Remeber this? It's what got the whole 97% thing started:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Quote

Several studies of the consensus have been undertaken.^[1] Among the most-cited is a 2013 study of nearly 12,000 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers on climate science published since 1990, of which just over 4,000 papers expressed an opinion on the cause of recent global warming. Of these, 97% agree, explicitly or implicitly, that global warming is happening and is human-caused.^[2][3] It is "extremely likely"^[4] that this warming arises from "... human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases..."^[4] in the atmosphere.^[5] Natural change alone would have had a slight cooling effect rather than a warming effect.^[6][7][8][9]

Notice that the papers were not read, but only the abstracts were considered. And what isn't noted in the above is that even the abstracts weren't actually read, but were only electronically scanned for predetermined words and phrases which might indicate agreement with or rejection of man-blamed climate change.

So, they immediately eliminated from consideration two-thirds of the papers due to their not expressing an opinion. And why? Who decided that not expressing an opinion is not a valid position? One must have a strong opinion pro or con, or else one is not counted? Heh.

And it gets worse. The deeper you look into it, the more pathetic these people's notions of science is in regard to the alleged consensus.

Anyway, Billy, I'm curious if you find anything to criticize in their methodology. Is it what you would call good science?

J

Check out the article below. While reading it, do any critical questions come to mind? Is this science? Is it settled?

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-02/ru-ccs022219.php

Climate change shrinks many fisheries globally, Rutgers-led study finds

Researchers find losses as high as 35 percent in some regions

RUTGERS UNIVERSITY

IMAGE: BLACK SEA BASS ARE ONE OF THE CLIMATE CHANGE "WINNERS " THAT HAVE SEEN THEIR PRODUCTIVITY INCREASE WITH WARMING OCEAN TEMPERATURES. view more 

CREDIT: ORION WELDON

1 hour ago, Jonathan said:

The deeper you look into it, the more pathetic these people's notions of science is in regard to the alleged consensus.

Jonathan,

I learned a term a couple of years ago that fits this perfectly: moral panic.

The more I look at the behavior of people who advocate manmade climate change, the more I see similarities with moral panics. And it starts with slapping opinions on scientific observations and findings that create widespread fear and mass hysteria. But the science for these cases has generally been cherry-picked, flawed conclusions drawn from it, or outright pseudo-science has been presented as the read deal. And once a moral panic starts, laws get passed, deniers get demonized by both huckster authorities and the terrorized masses, lots of doomsday scenarios get predicted, the press goes nuts, books and movies get produced, and so on. Often, companies and government authorities work covertly to keep the fear rolling while they provide "solutions."

(For a typical huckster authority cashing in on climate change, one that resembles megachurch preachers who cash in on moral panics involving demons, think Al Gore. But there are plenty of others.)

Here are some examples of things that have been used to trigger moral panics with large-scale social and legal impacts: comic books, switchblades, implanted, false and/or recovered memories, HIV and Aids, witches, guns, sundry games, vaccines, Jews, poor immigrants in general who live in ghettos of their culture, alcohol, different drugs, population explosion, and so on. And, now, of course, the climate.

Moral panics sometimes result in major social damage like Prohibition and eugenics (which is still with us in different forms), but they mostly fizzle out after peaking.

The thing that has kept the manmade climate change moral panic going for so long, I believe, is the seduction of the massive money and power to be gained from preaching it, which is why there are constant new rounds of goosing up the science to make the doomsday scenarios look like "settled science." 

Michael

Maybe William is an intellectual masochist. He's here for the pain.

--Brant

10 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Jonathan,

I learned a term a couple of years ago that fits this perfectly: moral panic.

The more I look at the behavior of people who advocate manmade climate change, the more I see similarities with moral panics. And it starts with slapping opinions on scientific observations and findings that create widespread fear and mass hysteria. But the science for these cases has generally been cherry-picked, flawed conclusions drawn from it, or outright pseudo-science has been presented as the read deal. And once a moral panic starts, laws get passed, deniers get demonized by both huckster authorities and the terrorized masses, lots of doomsday scenarios get predicted, the press goes nuts, books and movies get produced, and so on. Often, companies and government authorities work covertly to keep the fear rolling while they provide "solutions."

(For a typical huckster authority cashing in on climate change, one that resembles megachurch preachers who cash in on moral panics involving demons, think Al Gore. But there are plenty of others.)

Here are some examples of things that have been used to trigger moral panics with large-scale social and legal impacts: comic books, switchblades, implanted, false and/or recovered memories, HIV and Aids, witches, guns, sundry games, vaccines, Jews, poor immigrants in general who live in ghettos of their culture, alcohol, different drugs, population explosion, and so on. And, now, of course, the climate.

Moral panics sometimes result in major social damage like Prohibition and eugenics (which is still with us in different forms), but they mostly fizzle out after peaking.

The thing that has kept the manmade climate change moral panic going for so long, I believe, is the seduction of the massive money and power to be gained from preaching it, which is why there are constant new rounds of goosing up the science to make the doomsday scenarios look like "settled science." 

Michael

Well said!

On this thread, I've been hoping to move beyond the panic ploys. Please convince me with the science, I request. Here is what I'll need to see, I say. I've looked for it myself, and haven't succeeded. After following the issue for decades, I've also seen past failed predictions disappear, never to be mentioned again, and others become altered mid-experiment. I've seen the press report blatant untruths, and scientists not correct them -- and I've seen brave individual scientists then step forward to correct the record, earning them vitriol from fellow scientists who were silent about the untruths.

Let's cut through all of that and have a grown up conversation. Show me what I ask to see. It's what I need to be convinced. I need to see the science, not a substitute and some tee hee hees. I need to see reliably repeatable successful predictions, including all of the details that I've listed several times here.

I'll wait. I'll continue to laugh at the non-responsive responses, the silent treatment games, the tee hee heeing, and the panic ploys. I'll wait.

J

I really have to change my approach and methods.  I am taking a look at a selection of the non-answered questions between Jonathan and WSS  -- from our most recent exchanges.  

Human-driven climate change meets "gold standard" of scientific certainty

23 hours ago, william.scherk said:

I really have to change my approach and methods.  I am taking a look at a selection of the non-answered questions between Jonathan and WSS  -- from our most recent exchanges.

I'm looking forward to it.

But I guess that in the mean time, it'll be more of the same..."Here's some tasty steamed octopus."

23 hours ago, william.scherk said:

 

Human-driven climate change meets "gold standard" of scientific certainty

 

Wow, dose bois are effen certain, eh? Especially considering that up until just recently, the consensus scientists had spent about a decade being very uncertain and trying to come up with a hypothesis or forty which they had hoped might explain the 15 to 18-year "pause" or "hiatus" which showed up in reality after they hadn't predicted it. It was very troublesome and problematic. They came up with all sorts of stuff that they felt almost explained it, but nothing to form a consensus around. Then one day, a couple of scientists came up with a great solution: Everybody had been making a big deal outta nuffin, and plus it never happened, so let's make it go away and we'll stop talking about it. Yeah, that's the ticket. All of you other scientists were wrong, see, as were all of your data and analyses for all of those years. Shut up about it, it's done now, and we're all certain and on the same page again. It never happened. Oceana has never been at war with Eastasia. We are "gold standard" certain, and we always have been.

J

20 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Human-driven climate change meets "gold standard" of scientific certainty

By the way, virtually no one truly believes the above, including the people who performed the analyses and published them, and we all know it. Their actions betray them. They don't live as if they believe what they're preaching. In fact, generally speaking, the opposite is true: they usually have much larger carbon footprints than the average person.

I'll believe that the alarmists are serious about their claimed beliefs about climate change when they behave accordingly. And that applies to you, Billy, as well. When y'all focus on yourselves and your own actions, and voluntarily take real steps and give up the luxuries in your lives which contradict your positions on climate (and I mean real actions based on a consistent, disciplined regimen for the rest of your lives, and not just occasional, superficial, virtue-signaling, publicity-seeking symbolic actions), then I will begin to believe that you believe what you claim.

You want us to believe that you believe this shit? Then show us. Lead by example. No more lame excuses. Walk the walk.

J

On 3/5/2019 at 1:05 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Those are pretty pictures and animations.

One man's 'pretty pictures' are another man's (sometimes amazing) visualizations of atmospheric processes. One can also think of them as tools -- tools for understanding some current weather features -- especially the effect of the polar vortex 'weakening' the jetstream this winter. I find them useful and interesting and "I bet I am not the only one." 

Could anyone reading this thread and using the tools learn anything about atmospheric processes that they mightn't otherwise? I think so.

6 hours ago, Jonathan said:

23 hours ago, william.scherk said:

I really have to change my approach and methods.  I am taking a look at a selection of the non-answered questions between Jonathan and WSS  -- from our most recent exchanges.

I'm looking forward to it.

But I guess that in the mean time, it'll be more of the same..."Here's some tasty steamed octopus."

I haven't figured out just where and how to change my approach and methods -- but the effort requires me to start at the beginning of this topic thread.  I will be looking for good questions -- good questions unanswered. And I will probably be boring and recursive to some readers.

In the meantime ...

I will continue to offer 'tasty steamed octopus' in the guise of tools for exploration. I don't at the moment see why posting snapshots from Climate Reanalyzer's visualization tool is an octopus instead of, what -- Ice Cream.

Speaking of seafood ...

On 3/6/2019 at 4:38 PM, Jonathan said:

[Quoting a Eureka-Alert press release: "]Climate change has taken a toll on many of the world's fisheries, and overfishing has magnified the problem, according to a Rutgers-led study in the journal Science today["].

Who has yet managed to examine the publication in Science?

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

One man's 'pretty pictures' are another man's (sometimes amazing) visualizations of atmospheric processes.

William,

Why is this either-or to you?

It's not to me.

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

One can also think of them as tools -- tools for understanding some current weather features...

And as tools for propaganda, especially in engineering consent of the masses for dictatorship by technocrats.

I mean, if you want to spread propaganda, you might as well make it pretty. The ignorant populace likes pretty pictures, huh?

Michael

On 3/11/2019 at 11:42 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

On 3/11/2019 at 10:42 AM, william.scherk said:

One man's 'pretty pictures' are another man's (sometimes amazing) visualizations of atmospheric processes.

Why is this either-or to you?

Could it be that your comments disparage the several data-visualization tools I have most recently offered in this thread -- as mere "pretty pictures"?  That is the impression I got, but I could be wrong. 

I would not dispute that they may perhaps seem like irrelevant 'pretty pictures' to you, in the sense of what you want to know. 

Quote

It's not to me.

I don't really understand, but let me ask to make sure:  is the Earth.nullschool.net project 'pretty' but otherwise useless to you as a tool for greater understanding of atmospheric processes?

Or better --  can you let us know if you clicked over to the project site?

Quote

On 3/11/2019 at 10:42 AM, william.scherk said:

One can also think of them as tools -- tools for understanding some current weather features...

And as tools for propaganda, especially in engineering consent of the masses for dictatorship by technocrats.

Let's narrow it down:  what is your actual objection to the Earth.nullschool.net tool?  

Quote

I mean, if you want to spread propaganda, you might as well make it pretty. The ignorant populace likes pretty pictures, huh?

I infer from this that you suspect the Earth.nullschool.net project is useless to you except for propaganda.  Is that accurate?  Can you think of and share a scenario that might make Earth.nullschool.net useful to you personally?

Or, under what circumstances would you recommend anyone spend time at Earth.nullschool.net?

On 3/5/2019 at 1:05 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Those are pretty pictures and animations.

I still don't see anything near a repeatable result or repeatable conclusion.

Sure. But try to look at it from a different perspective -- let us say you were wondering about a particular aspect or setting of any visualization tool: how would we get to satisfying a desire for 'repeatable result' or 'repeatable conclusion'?

For example, let's say I posted a weather-data graphic from a meteorology site.

-- this is a radar map from https://www.alabamawx.com/

So, let's say this visualization doesn't satisfy -- in the sense of returning to any of us "The Science" underlying the radar arrays and the interpretation/coding of the models that give us the visualization above.

How might you or I or any silent reader here come to the point of 'repeatable result' or 'repeatable conclusion' from the data visualization?

My answer off the top of my head is that we would have to build up our understanding of the instruments used -- including those aloft in space and those in the supercomputers that mash the 'raw' data into an indicative representation.

I hope you can understand that this would be a pretty involved project.  How does one of us 'test' the underlying machinery and assumptions of a visualization such as a radar map? 

Quote

I want an ice cream cone, not turkey bacon with quinoa and bok choy.

Okay -- what might someone like you (who may not be all that interested in the first place) want from a data-visualization tool like Earth.nullschool.net?

None of my questions here above need an explicit answer. Maybe we can just think about the tools and how much rigorous work went into a given representation. Without doing heavy duty coursework in meteorology ...

William,

That's quite a lot of deflection and blah blah blah in answer to a repeated simple question. And it still doesn't answer the question.

A simple answer to a simple question is pretty basic for us retards. We do it every day.

I guess for an intellectually superior man like you, that is no longer possible. I mean, who has time for trifles like clarity, huh? Especially when there are important things to do like The Art of the Preen...

Some people like Ice Cream and they ask for it, but that is soooo very vulgar for the initiated...

(btw - I like the pretty pictures.  )

Michael

How shall I respond to a comment that presumes I operate in bad faith?  "Deflection and blah blah blah" ...

You get the fuck out and go somewhere you are welcomed — really, were you raised by viruses, WTF?

5 hours ago, william.scherk said:

How shall I respond to a comment that presumes I operate in bad faith?

William,

That's not the term I came up with, but I'll take it.

And here's why.

How does an intelligent person (like you) ignore a simple question for months and months, one that has been asked countless times in several different manners, and always resort to responding with self-serving data dumps or news headline dumps, boilerplate talking points, irrelevant (to the question) articles and graphics, mockery or at least belittlement of the questioner's ability to understand the oh so obvious, including the mental abilities of those who think like the questioner, etc., etc., etc., if not bad faith?

We are speaking English and, I presume, English is your native language.

So it can't be lack of understanding English.

Are you stupid? No. You're not stupid.

Do you know what a question is? Yes. You know what a question is.

Do you know what an answer is? Yes. You know what an answer is.

Yet you sidestep, obfuscate, mock, dump oodles of work by other people, blah blah blah.

But answer the question? You don't.

Why?

Nah... Forget it. I don't even want to know why. It's been too long and there's been too much bullshit. So to answer your question about how to respond, you don't need to. It will just be more bullshit.

Hell, even a simple, "I don't know," or "I don't have such repeatable science," would do. Or, "Here is the gist of a repeatable finding (in everyday English). And here is the repeatable finding itself: (source)." Boom. Done. What's wrong or complicated about giving a fucking answer?

Nothing, that's what.

So it has to be bad faith.

Michael

I think that the tools and toys that Billy links to are fun. They're interesting.

They're not answers to my questions, however. In the context of my asking for the science (OMG, he said "the science," tee hee hee), they are the equivalent of posting pictures of molecules containing carbon and today's weather in Tonga.

20 hours ago, william.scherk said:

I haven't figured out just where and how to change my approach and methods -- but the effort requires me to start at the beginning of this topic thread.  I will be looking for good questions -- good questions unanswered. And I will probably be boring and recursive to some readers.

Cool. It really shouldn't be a difficult thing to figure out. Just answer the questions. Or tell us why you think that the questions are not valid, if that's the case. Do you not like the scientific method? Do you reject it as being silly or old-fashioned or something? If so, explain why, and then identify what you propose to replace it with.

20 hours ago, william.scherk said:

In the meantime ...

I will continue to offer 'tasty steamed octopus' in the guise of tools for exploration. I don't at the moment see why posting snapshots from Climate Reanalyzer's visualization tool is an octopus instead of, what -- Ice Cream.

Hmmm. Have you not read and understood the questions that I've asked multiple times? I don't understand how that could be possible. You're definitely not stupid. Are you trying to not understand? Are you suffering some sort of psychological block which prevents you from understanding? I don't know. And I don't know how to make my questions any clearer. They mean what they mean, and they're not hard to understand. They're not complex metaphors with obscure references or anything like that. They're just simple, direct questions.

J

On 3/11/2019 at 6:08 AM, Jonathan said:

which they had hoped might explain the 15 to 18-year "pause" or "hiatus" which showed up in reality after they hadn't predicted it. It was very troublesome and problematic.

There is no statistical pause in any dataset. Even UAH shows greater warming after 1998 than it did prior to 1998. Why do you insist on referring to a non existent pause? This is a strawman. Note, the final 2016 super El Nino was intentionally left off to give a best case scenario for constant warming and it still fails. Warming rate has increased, there is no pause.

40 minutes ago, Guest said:

There is no statistical pause in any dataset. Even UAH shows greater warming after 1998 than it did prior to 1998. Why do you insist on referring to a non existent pause?

Oceana has never been at war with Eastasia.

So, what you're saying is that all of the scientists who observed and analyzed the pause/haitus were wrong. All of the theorizing that they did over a dozen years to explain it was a big waste of time based on mistaken opinions? And these are the same scientists who are among the "consensus" of the "settled science"?

It was a very big worry, and now it never existed?

Am I having false memories of history? None of it ever happened? Somebody decided that the best way to handle the pause, after years of no one being able to explain it, was to deny its existence?

Is this how the new concept of "science" works?

J

25 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

Oceana has never been at war with Eastasia.

So, what you're saying is that all of the scientists who observed and analyzed the pause/haitus were wrong. All of the theorizing that they did over a dozen years to explain it was a big waste of time based on mistaken opinions? And these are the same scientists who are among the "consensus" of the "settled science"?

It was a very big worry, and now it never existed?

Am I having false memories of history? None of it ever happened? Somebody decided that the best way to handle the pause, after years of no one being able to explain it, was to deny its existence?

Is this how the new concept of "science" works?

J

Short abet to nearly every question, yes.

Longer answer, science isn't absolute. It's a process and someone's through that process we realize we were incorrect. Now that you've been shown there isn't a pause in the data, are you going to accept it or try make a mountain out of the hole you are digging for yourself?