Greenhouse effect may not cause greater temperature variability after all

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Show me an accurate prediction by climate models.

Please tell us all here, exactly HOW accurate is "accurate" here in this context and WHY exactly that amount of accuracy?...
Exactly HOW do you DEFINE "accurate" here in this context and WHY THAT definition rather some other definition? .....
-Failure to answer this proves you don't know what you mean yourself by "accurate" nor even why.

Originally posted by humy
Please tell us all here, exactly HOW accurate is "accurate" here in this context and WHY exactly that amount of accuracy?...
Exactly HOW do you DEFINE "accurate" here in this context and WHY THAT definition rather some other definition? .....
-Failure to answer this proves you don't know what you mean yourself by "accurate" nor even why.

Fine, show me any prediction of a climate model and the findings. We can all judge if it is accurate enough.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"When the majority of the scientific cllimate society come up with results that doesn't fit you"

I challenge that assertion. The majority of climate scientists do NOT support predictions from climate models. A lot of people seem to think since a majority of climate scientists accept that man is contributing to global warming that they can believe alar ...[text shortened]... re NOT! This is the lie being pushed on people. You apparently were duped into this lie as well.

Smoetimes when I read your postings, dear Metal Brain, I have to check that I'm not in the Spiritual Forum, because you share your rehtorics very much with those fundamentalists there.

Like "This is the lie being pushed on people." Where have I Heard that one Before? Ah, yes, from the creationists.

Like "You apparently were duped into this lie as well." Borderline accusation of not knowing facts. You know the holy Truth but the junk scientists, that happen to be the vast majority, with a education far exceeding yours, are all wrong and nothing but a duped croud of non-believers.

The next posting, if you follow the pattern, will be personal attacks.

This is the science Forum, right? Wait, I just have to check... 🙂

Originally posted by Metal Brain
show me any prediction of a climate model and the findings. We can all judge if it is accurate enough.

"We" doesn't include you as you cannot even explain what you mean by accurate thus it is perfectly clear you don't know what you are talking about.

But this would do:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2014/09/16/4088609.htm

In this case, this model makes a prediction which has already been observed to be true. This is just the way science works.

Climate Modeling 101 - Grid Resolution: YouTube

I just thought someone (no name) might benefit from this in understanding why, if the margin of error is higher the further back in time we go.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Smoetimes when I read your postings, dear Metal Brain, I have to check that I'm not in the Spiritual Forum, because you share your rehtorics very much with those fundamentalists there.

Like "This is the lie being pushed on people." Where have I Heard that one Before? Ah, yes, from the creationists.

Like "You apparently were duped into this lie as we ...[text shortened]... will be personal attacks.

This is the science Forum, right? Wait, I just have to check... 🙂

I am an atheist. There is nothing spiritual about me.

The majority of climate scientists agree that man is affecting the climate. That is true. The majority of climate scientists do NOT agree the alarmist predictions of doom promoted by humy, sonhouse and googlefudge.

If I am wrong you should have no problem proving that. Try proving me wrong. When you can't do it you will realize the true reason humy likes to insult me on a regular basis. His position is weak and he is the one embracing GW alarmism like a religion. Apparently you do too.

Do you believe I am wrong because you know it or because you want to believe it? There is a difference.

Originally posted by C Hess
Climate Modeling 101 - Grid Resolution: https://youtu.be/HTz2YZoRLIs

I just thought someone (no name) might benefit from this in understanding why, if the margin of error is higher the further back in time we go.

Climate models are improving over time, but that does not prove they are good enough to make predictions without failing miserably as they have before. Scientists that program climate models always say they think they have it right before another prediction failure. If they want to continue to receive funding they have to say their climate models are good even when they may have serious doubts. Try getting funding by saying their climate models still have a long way to go. They don't mind another prediction failure in the future as long as they don't fail to get funding today.

Originally posted by humy
"We" doesn't include you as you cannot even explain what you mean by accurate thus it is perfectly clear you don't know what you are talking about.

But this would do:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2014/09/16/4088609.htm

In this case, this model makes a prediction which has already been observed to be true. This is just the way science works.

"In this case, this model makes a prediction which has already been observed to be true. This is just the way science works."

Predicting the past? That is not a prediction at all. That is another tweek to match past data. That is not a test.

Look up "prediction" in the dictionary. You obviously don't know what the word means.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
I am an atheist. There is nothing spiritual about me.

The majority of climate scientists agree that man is affecting the climate. That is true. The majority of climate scientists do NOT agree the alarmist predictions of doom promoted by humy, sonhouse and googlefudge.

If I am wrong you should have no problem proving that. Try proving me wrong. Whe ...[text shortened]... believe I am wrong because you know it or because you want to believe it? There is a difference.

"I am an atheist. There is nothing spiritual about me."
You use the same kind of retorics that the christian fundamentalists use. That doesn't make you spiritual.

"If I am wrong you should have no problem proving that."
You wouldn't believe any solid proof that were given to you. Why would I even try? I cannot convince creationists either.

"His position is weak..."
I understand you think that. If he had the same opinion that you have, then you would consider him strong.

"Apparently you do too."
If you refer to what I think about the climat in the future you haven't understood what I try to message.

I say that you use the same kind of retorics that the creationists do. That is my point.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
"I am an atheist. There is nothing spiritual about me."
You use the same kind of retorics that the christian fundamentalists use. That doesn't make you spiritual.

"If I am wrong you should have no problem proving that."
You wouldn't believe any solid proof that were given to you. Why would I even try? I cannot convince creationists either.

"His po ...[text shortened]... age.

I say that you use the same kind of retorics that the creationists do. That is my point.

First of all it is spelled "rhetoric". Saying I use the same kind of rhetoric that Christians do does not make it so. Nobody has presented any solid proof, that is the problem. I am presenting facts and others present wild theories that are more akin to a religious belief. You have it completely backwards. You in particular have not presented any facts to back up your position. Even humy has done better than you in this regard despite his habitual evasiveness.

Where are your facts? You have presented none that I can recall.

Originally posted by Metal Brain


That is another tweek to match past data.

"This is just the way science works." (my previous quote ) i.e. what I am saying is what you dismiss as " another tweek to match past data" is scientific i.e. "tweek to match past data" is exactly what good science SHOULD do! The theory should be adapted to the evidence and not the evidence adapted to the theory; that is just the way science works so you cannot validly just dismiss it simply by calling doing that as "tweek" -science SHOULD "tweek" the theory/model to match the data/evidence.

+ what is wrong or unscientific with a test of a theory by seeing if it correctly predicts past events?

+ why would you insist that it is incorrect to say something like "prediction of past event" just because because we usually but not necessarily refer to the future when we say "prediction"?
-it is a simple case of modifying its meaning by prefixing the word with "...of past..." which is allowed in English grammar.
and if I am not allowed to say "prediction of past event", what should I call it instead if not "prediction"? and, lets say you say I should call it something X whatever the word or term "X" is, then what I am saying is that the climate models are able to do X thus vindicating them.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
They don't mind another prediction failure in the future as long as they don't fail to get funding today.

Q. What is your prediction of the total I throw on 2 dice?

Q. Would you say '7' is the best prediction?

Q. After I roll '9' does that mean '7' wasn't the best prediction?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Q. What is your prediction of the total I throw on 2 dice?

Q. Would you say '7' is the best prediction?

Q. After I roll '9' does that mean '7' wasn't the best prediction?

Excellent implied point! Now lets see if he gets it, or doesn't get it, or pretends not to, or ignores it....

Originally posted by humy
"This is just the way science works." (my previous quote ) i.e. what I am saying is what you dismiss as " another tweek to match past data" is scientific i.e. "tweek to match past data" is exactly what good science SHOULD do! The theory should be adapted to the evidence and not the evidence adapted to the theory; that is just the way science works so you cannot ...[text shortened]... "X" is, then what I am saying is that the climate models are able to do X thus vindicating them.

"what is wrong or unscientific with a test of a theory by seeing if it correctly predicts past events?"

Because we already know past events. Predicting future events is real proof because nobody knows the future. You only have one chance to get it right. Past events can be predicted by trial and error before facing the real test in front of others.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
First of all it is spelled "rhetoric". Saying I use the same kind of rhetoric that Christians do does not make it so. Nobody has presented any solid proof, that is the problem. I am presenting facts and others present wild theories that are more akin to a religious belief. You have it completely backwards. You in particular have not presented any facts t ...[text shortened]... e his habitual evasiveness.

Where are your facts? You have presented none that I can recall.

Oh, first of all, eh? The most important flaw in my reasoning is a Spelling error? Okay, the rest is okay?

This is also a sign of fundamentility - if you cannot complain of anything else, complain about the language. Du fattar att engelska inte är mitt modersmål eller? Jag skulle vilja se hur du uttrycker dej på svenska. If you get my Point.

I don't discuss the climat with you, that is futile, exactly why it is futile to discuss science with a creationist. There are many facts (that you perhaps don't understand) on the web, if you are interested (which you aren't).

I just compare your rhetorics (right?) with the rhetorics of christian fundamentalists and creationists, and find it interestingly similar. Your kind of rhetorics are used very much in the Spiritual Forum.

What will be your next move in this debate? Personal attacks? Denial? Straw men? Avoidance?