SoAMadDeathWish

You can mock me all you like, but it won't change the fact that your belief has no basis in reality whatsoever.

You don't need exact solutions of the equations in order to use them for calculation. The approximation methods we do have are sufficient for most purposes and are well-behaved enough that they work just fine except in the most extreme situations. Even then, you can average out anything too turbulent if you use an appropriate time interval. You don't have to be able to predict every little gust of wind in order to calculate the average temperature of a system over 10 or 20 years. As I've said before, if you believe that the climate models are unfalsifiable, then you should present your reasons for believing so. It should not be so difficult if you actually have any good reasons for your belief. When you deal with chaotic dynamics you need numerical algorithms that are guaranteed to converge. Such methods are not generally available with the Navier Stokes equations. That is why there is a million dollar prize for finding such methods. We do not have tractable mathematical methods for chaotic and non-linear dynamics. That is the way it is. I told you we do not have a well founded climate science, but you won't listen. Models we have and they can be fiddled. Ba'al Chatzaf No, you most certainly do not. There are ways around the problem, such as using the Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations, May I remind you that the general 3-body problem for Newtonian Gravity has never been solved, precisely because of non-linear dynamics. Does that mean that our models of the solar system are unfalsifiable or that we do not have a viable theory of gravitation? We have several theories of gravitation (classical-Newtonian and the linearzied approximation to Einstein's field equations from General Relativity. Both models are quite accurate for the solar system. Things get hairier for very strong gravitational fields. It is not clear the Einstein's theory holds up near black holes and Newton's theory definitely does not. In any case we do not have anything this good for climate. Climate is very complicated. It is more than averaging weather. And for weather, we have no really good theories. The best we can do is predict weather ten days out. Long term weather prediction simply does not exist. Ba'al Chatzaf Firstly, climatology is not about weather prediction. Secondly, just because you keep repeating this claim over and over again, that does not make it true. Where is your support for this belief? I've asked you each time you said it, and each time you have failed and tried to ignore the issue. If you do not have any good reason to believe what you believe, then just admit it. EDIT: And don't think I haven't noticed the not-so-subtle backpedaling away from your original position.

Jonathan, The word irrational comes to mind. Swagger, some technical vocabulary and no rational substance. Michael I think it's fun watching the left throttle up its talking points, and push them more frantically every day. The "AGW is settle science" thing seemed to kick in as a tactic just the "consensus" "scientist's" predictions were starting to show themselves as drifting farther and farther from reality. In April, on the Scientific Fraud thread, I posted this: The "AGW is settled science" tactic becomes louder and more frantic and repetitive the farther that time goes on into the blue section. I think the idea is that the left realizes that it is running out of time to grab as much control as it can and impose restraints, hardships and death on people. Pretty soon the sheep that they're trying to herd won't trust them anymore, so they have to act now. J Your "hypothetical chart" sure does a great job of disproving AGW in "hypothetical reality" (which is not to mention the complete and utter lack of labels on the axes or scales or a source or anything even remotely resembling a fact). Too bad that the rest of the world doesn't live in your imagination. If you had any real data which contradicted the predictions, you would have posted that instead of a "hypothetical chart".

I'm not asking Ba'al to prove a negative. I'm asking him to back up his claims about climate models being unfalsifiable or seriously flawed in some way.

Newtonian gravitation has been sufficient to launch space vehicles into the outer part of the solar system. Where the gravitational field is weak the Newtonian solution and the Einsteinian solution for motions are nearly equal. To deal with weather we need the Navier Stokes equations full strength. Unfortunately we do not know how to solved them full strength. Our mathematical models for both weather (which deals with ocean and atmospheric conditions short range) and climate (which is long ranger and depends on more than the ambient ocean and atmospheric conditions) are not very good. That is why we cannot predict weather accurately for more than ten days out no matter how many radiosonde balloons we send up. The modern era of chaotic dynamics was introduced when meteorologist Ed Lorenz attempted to solved a non-linear system of equations in three variable to predict atmospheric convection. He discovered (by accident) that variations in the initial states of as little as one part in ten thousand produced very significantly different solutions. From the Wiki article on Lorenz: During the 1950s, Lorenz became skeptical of the appropriateness of the linear statistical models in meteorology, as most atmospheric phenomena involved in weather forecasting are non-linear.[2] His work on the topic culminated in the publication of his 1963 paperDeterministic Nonperiodic Flow in Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, and with it, the foundation ofchaos theory.[2][5] He states in that paper: His description of the butterfly effect followed in 1969.[2][6][7] He was awarded the Kyoto Prize for basic sciences, in the field of earth and planetary sciences, in 1991,[8] the Buys Ballot Award in 2004, and the Tomassoni Award in 2008. [9] In his later years, he lived in Cambridge, Massachusetts. He was an avid outdoorsman, who enjoyed hiking, climbing, and cross-country skiing. He kept up with these pursuits until very late in his life, and managed to continue most of his regular activities until only a few weeks before his death. According to his daughter, Cheryl Lorenz, Lorenz had "finished a paper a week ago with a colleague."[10] On April 16, 2008, Lorenz died at his home in Cambridge at the age of 90, having suffered from cancer.[1 Two states differing by imperceptible amounts may eventually evolve into two considerably different states ... If, then, there is any error whatever in observing the present state — and in any real system such errors seem inevitable — an acceptable prediction of an instantaneous state in the distant future may well be impossible....In view of the inevitable inaccuracy and incompleteness of weather observations, precise very-long-range forecasting would seem to be nonexistent. Chaotic behavior is caused by the sensitivity of a system to initial conditions. The initial conditions are determined by measurements, which are only finite in their accuracy. The chaos results from the lack of perfect information on the initial state of the weather, which is what Lorenz said, and which contradicts your claim that the inability to predict the weather results from flawed models. Neither Lorenz nor any other chaos theorist has ever claimed that "we cannot predict weather accurately for more than ten days out no matter how many radiosonde balloons we send up". Chaos is not a problem in climatology, because, as I've said before, turbulence is smoothed out by time-averaging. Prove it, then. Where is all this supposed research that shows that the current models are too inaccurate and don't take important factors into account? I have asked you for these references over and over again in this thread, and you refuse to back up your claims with even the slightest bit of support. You are not an authority on the subject, and as far as anyone knows so far, you're just making stuff up.

What is needed are numerical algorithms guaranteed to converge to a solution. The n-body problem does not have a closed form solution for n > 2 but it does have a numerical solution. That is why the orbits of our space craft can be figured out to high accuracy with the aid of computers In addition the Einstein Field equations can be solved numerically in a low strength gravitational field Alas non- linear chaotic dynamics and turbulence problems do not yield as well That's pretty cool. I actually didn't know that it had been solved. But the solution was discovered as recently as 1991. Does that mean that up until then, there were no viable theories of gravitation? I'm glad you pointed out the Einstein Field equations, because that's where I was about to go next. Now, as far as I know, there are no numerical methods for solving Einstein's field equations that are guaranteed to converge in the general case. Does that mean that GR is unfalsifiable? The answer to both of these questions, is, of course not. Look, if you have a climate model, the worst thing that can happen is that it tells you that the energy or other some such parameter is infinite. If that's the case, then you know right away that the result is nonsensical, and you can limit the model's applicability so that it doesn't include situations that gave rise to the singularity. However, that in no way means that applying the Navier-Stokes equations is impossible for all the other conditions for which the model does apply. As I've said before, the climate is studied over long enough time-scales that extremely turbulent situations which would cause problems are smoothed over.

You don't need exact solutions of the equations in order to use them for calculation. The approximation methods we do have are sufficient for most purposes and are well-behaved enough that they work just fine except in the most extreme situations. Even then, you can average out anything too turbulent if you use an appropriate time interval. You don't have to be able to predict every little gust of wind in order to calculate the average temperature of a system over 10 or 20 years. As I've said before, if you believe that the climate models are unfalsifiable, then you should present your reasons for believing so. It should not be so difficult if you actually have any good reasons for your belief. When you deal with chaotic dynamics you need numerical algorithms that are guaranteed to converge. Such methods are not generally available with the Navier Stokes equations. That is why there is a million dollar prize for finding such methods. We do not have tractable mathematical methods for chaotic and non-linear dynamics. That is the way it is. I told you we do not have a well founded climate science, but you won't listen. Models we have and they can be fiddled. Ba'al Chatzaf No, you most certainly do not. There are ways around the problem, such as using the Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations, May I remind you that the general 3-body problem for Newtonian Gravity has never been solved, precisely because of non-linear dynamics. Does that mean that our models of the solar system are unfalsifiable or that we do not have a viable theory of gravitation?

You don't need exact solutions of the equations in order to use them for calculation. The approximation methods we do have are sufficient for most purposes and are well-behaved enough that they work just fine except in the most extreme situations. Even then, you can average out anything too turbulent if you use an appropriate time interval. You don't have to be able to predict every little gust of wind in order to calculate the average temperature of a system over 10 or 20 years. As I've said before, if you believe that the climate models are unfalsifiable, then you should present your reasons for believing so. It should not be so difficult if you actually have any good reasons for your belief.

Has he denied this letter somewhere? I would if someone made up a letter, said I wrote it, and published it in the mainstream. Just like the rest of humanity. One more item of foolishness has been logged on your balance. Michael Well, he hasn't even acknowledged its existence, so it's hard to say.

So are living organisms, but that doesn't make the science of biology impossible. And we most certainly do have a solid theory of weather and climate, it's called "fluid dynamics". That they behave chaotically is no barrier to scientific investigation. Find me even a single example.

You have reached my tolerance for foolishness for one day. Your capacity to blank out posts--like the dude's resignation letter and interviews--that are right in front of you eyes is either the result of a hopelessly corrupted conceptual faculty or simple garden variety dishonesty. Neither serve for me. The precious minutes and hours of my life are not to be wasted on garbage like what you are doing. Personally I now believe you are playing a game to see how far you can push nonsense and get away with it on OL. So I'm back in mulling over what to do about it mode. One thing is for sure. The intellectual bar will be raised from your kindergarten level to the adult level, with you or without you. Michael The "resignation letter" is backed up by absolutely no one, not even Bengtsson himself, and his interviews reveal that the "abuse" he supposedly received amounted to nothing more than people calling him mean names on the internet.

It's exactly as I've said before. If Bengtsson had indeed said something like "It is “utterly unacceptable” to advise against publishing a paper on the ground that the findings might be used by climate sceptics to advance their arguments", then why not quote him directly? Instead, the Times article puts the words in his mouth. You can make anybody say whatever you want, if the only thing you quote from them directly are the two words "utterly unacceptable". EDIT: I never claimed that Investors.com butchered text from another article. I claimed that Bengtsson's own words were butchered and twisted in that quote. He said as much in his own words, directly from his own mouth: It's clear here that Bengtsson was merely concerned about how the reviewer's comments might be interpreted. Not that they were in fact motivated by politics, but that it might come off that way. If this is the case, then the whole premise of the Times article is based on a falsehood. However, you then claimed the man said the above because he was "scared". Scared of what? The above paragraph does not support that view unless you already assume that he was being intimidated into saying the above. In short, your belief that there is something more to this story than another case of yellow journalism is based on nothing more than your own prejudices and confirmation bias.

Naomi, Actually I'm glad you said this because I didn't recall the Wall Street Journal being mentioned except in passing. And this made me look closer than I normally would have. So what did the WSJ claim that Bengtsson said that you say he never said and is "pure fabrication"? Well, let's look. My mistake. It wasn't WSJ, I meant to say Investors.com, the link that Jonathan provided, i.e. this. The part I claimed that is pure fabrication is the part: Notice how they completely chop up the quote and "filled in the blanks" in a very convenient way.

That is a lie. You have a great argument with your other personalities. You just lied and you have not provided studies. I am done. I will post studies, however you are incapable of argumentation so I won't argue. I am actually ecstatic that you are arguing for AGW, because your incompetence will only chase people away so they can actually look at reality. A... No it isn't.

Where is all this supposed evidence? Not one person here has presented even a single thing so far. The effect of the oceanic conveyors (the major currents) is documented up the ying yang. The Gulf Stream and the northern Atlantic conveyor is the major reason why the Thames does not freeze every winter. The current around Antarctica is why the middle of Antiarctica is so cold. The Antarctic Ice is not melting fast like the Greenland Glacier. Why not read a book or ocean current, cloud formation and the the effect of plate tectonics on climate. Visit your library soon and often. Ba'al Chatzaf Are you insinuating that ocean currents completely explain global warming? If so, then why not just state that belief upfront and provide supporting arguments and evidence?

Where is all this supposed evidence? Not one person here has presented even a single thing so far.

"Long" is not a well-defined time-scale. Climate, as the definition plainly says, is "weather conditions averaged over time." First of all, note the word "averaged". Weather conditions by contrast are instantaneous (theoretically). Note also that the time is not restricted to any range of time-intervals. Theoretically, you could study weather patterns over a 10-second range and call it a "climate", but such short time intervals are too chaotic for us to really say anything about them. Nonetheless, the relatively short time interval does not make the average temperature over a ten-second interval of a weather system the same thing as its temperature at any instant. They are simply too very different kinds of variables. You claimed that the climate models in the mainstream are unfalsifiable in an earlier post, and I'm still waiting for your brilliant demonstration of that "fact". On top of that, any of my opponents in this thread have yet to challenge even a single AGW claim on empirical grounds.

Quote I expected better than that from you.

You don't need a study to show that a claim made by a mainstream source is a claim made by a mainstream source. OK, we can agree on the above definition of climatology as the study of weather. So we can use all the experts on weather as our data pool on AGW. No where are the studies? Your evasion and question begging does not work here. Question begging being defined as: You could never be subtle. A... It's not question begging to say that A is A. If a mainstream source says "x", then "x" is what the mainstream source says.

Here's what I know. That is "Bengtsson's only STATED complaint" after the fact. Here's what I think. I think Bengtsson is afraid of losing future funding and other scientist world goodies. Easier to back off than to stand. Speculation, granted, but in this context, it is pretty good speculation. From what I read on your link, there was a crap-load of tut tut tutting... Michael Stand on regard to what? He never said what the WSJ article claims he did. The whole thing is pure fabrication.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define+climatology Wow... that was hard. From wikipedia: You don't need a study to show that a claim made by a mainstream source is a claim made by a mainstream source.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-1-3.html

A scientist caving into peer pressure when a media storm erupts on his head NEVER happens... Oh no... At that link, there's a lot of blah blah blah by scientists patting themselves on the back and tut tut tutting. There is only one quote I found interesting: “In the interests of transparency and informed debate, Professor Bengtsson’s paper should be made public along with reports from the referees and editor." That certainly would show if sleaze were behind the media storm. Michael Bengtsson's draft will never be made public unless he decides to release it to the media himself. As for the reports from the referees and editor, they are in the third link I provided. Here they are: I have highlighted in red the sentence which caused all the ruckus. Bengtsson's only complaint was that that statement might be misconstrued to give the impression of an ideological motivation on the part of the referee. It is plain as day to anyone with a functioning pair of eyes and brain hemispheres that the article in the WSJ was quoting Bengtsson selectively to make it appear as if he is saying that he is being silenced by the journal, when really nothing of the sort has occurred.

Completely biased journalism, even according to Bengtsson himself: http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-claims-climate-research-was-suppressed/ Here are a few other sources which don't quote Bengtsson out of context and give a more detailed account of what happened: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/may/19/another-manufactured-climate-controversy And from the publisher itself: http://ioppublishing.org/newsDetails/statement-from-iop-publishing-on-story-in-the-times

The author misrepresents mainstream climatology. While it is true that a change in the composition of the body alone cannot change the mean temperature, that is not how the Greenhouse Effect works. A change in the composition of the atmosphere changes the way that radiation from the sun is absorbed and re-emitted. That radiation can certainly change the mean temperature of the Earth. There is so much wrong with this part that it's honestly hard to know where to even begin. First of all, the impermeability of a material to radiation has nothing to do with its fluid storage capacity or porosity. Rather, the absorption and reflection of radiation depends on the absorption spectra of the molecules in the material and their concentrations. Thus, there is no contradiction in saying that a material is both impermeable to radiation and absorptive of that radiation. That's part of what "impermeable" means. If radiation is neither reflected nor absorbed, then it is permeable. So, if it is impermeable, it follows that radiation must either be absorbed or reflected or both. Additionally, "thermal permeability" is irrelevant in this context because no one is claiming that the sun is in direct thermal contact with the Earth. Heat is transferred from the sun to the Earth via radiation. Here he misrepresents his opponents yet again. No climatologists claim that the greenhouse effect causes a rise in surface temperatures beyond what radiation from the sun can account for. On the contrary, it is precisely this incident radiation which is the only source of heating caused by the greenhouse effect.