Bridenstine, Climate Scientists Are Not Noble, Stop Paying Them

The 2014 IPCC report recognized the existence of a warming hiatus, that *none* of the models predicted it, and that no one knows why the hiatus exists. The NCA did *not* recognize the same thing!

Since then we have seen all kinds of cockeyed theories and have even seen NASA try to revise the temperature data to hide the hiatus.

Take sea level rise for instance. The change in volume of sea water for a difference in temperature also depends on the temperature of the water. The constant factor goes UP as the temperature of the water goes up. The newest, most accurate sea temperature measurements have shown the ocean to be several degrees COOLER than the older, less accurate measurement devices indicated. Meaning the sea level rise has been drastically over-estimated because the constant value used was too large. So what did NASA do? They revised all the newer, more accurate measurements UP so they would match the older, less accurate measurements - thus eliminating the need to redo all sea level rise studies and projections!

 

If you think you are gong to change the cars driven by most Americans in even a generation you are sadly mistaken. I simply will not buy an electric car where I have to stop midway through a trip to my son's house to wait for an hour or more while the car recharges. Most Americans won't.

Nor do *any* of the current plans for alternative energy show *any* methods for what is going to be done with all the batteries that have to be replaced as they wear out. They contain toxic chemicals and placing them in land fills will result in the same issue we had with Love Canal.

Most cars today do *NOT* produce the amount of pollution you seem to want to imply. Many states require a car to be examined for the level of pollutants being generated before a car can be re-registered.

Radioactivity is *NOT* a major pollutant. And I have two cheap Geiger Counters in my basement that can alert you to levels of radioactivity that are dangerous. They are suplus Civil Defense units and cost me about $25 on Ebay. They *do* work based on annual tests I run against a radioactive sample I keep in a lead-lined canister.

I'm quite sure you don't see the value of my post. You are an alarmist and want to remain in a bubble of willful ignorance so you can continue to be an alarmist.

 

I see what is being said here.

that climate science isn't real science because such fundamental issues and standardized processes such as tool calibration and tool accuracy are completely ignored.
That such a fundamental phenomena as hysteresis and mathematical conversion accuracy is ignored.

BTW, do you know how many is "many scientists" according to Watt. methinks he has to shovel a great deal of his opinions.

 

Because the inputs need to be PROCESSED internally before you get an output?

Nobody I know is debating that these scientists and their technology suppliers demonstrate their scientific understanding by being aware of and compensating for potential weaknesses and errors that can and do occur in their observation suite data.

Oh look science everyone.

 

NO, YOU DON'T SEE AT ALL!

This fact was proven when NASA was finally pressed to admit that there was only a 38% chance that 2014 was the hottest year on record. There was 62% THAT IT WAS *NOT* THE HOTTEST YEAR ON RECORD!

Yet what did they trumpet in their news release? That it *was* the hottest year on record!

The fact that you *never* see a margin of error given for the output of any climate model is a surefire indicator that something is wrong. Either they are not calculating what the margin of error *is* or they don't want us to know what it is. Either one of these is damning for the credibility of the scientists putting out news releases on outputs of the climate models.

 

And if the outputs don't match reality then are the models wrong or are the inputs wrong?

Then why don't they ever publish the margin of error for their models output? They can't compensate for margin of errors in the inputs. Those carry through to any later calculations.

The fact that the models continue to deviate more every year from the satellite and weather balloon data indicates that there is *some* kind of errors involved that are *not* being compensated for -- exactly like RSS pointed out in their analysis!

No one is debating that the climate scientists TRY to compensate, it is the result of their trying that is being questioned![/quote][/QUOTE]

 

Silly me, of course its stupid of me to think for even a moment that different applications might actually be different applications.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA!

just a faster computer? Only in the same way that a formula one car is merely a faster model T.

(you do realize a computer can't be smart or that I didn't mention "judgement calls" aren't you?)

Nah I'm not that smart concerning computers and applications, which is why over my career I was directly responsible for the selling over $300 million of the stuff. I guess I just must have been lucky because according to you I don't know enough about this stuff. that or my clients and their's were really really dumb.

I am well aware of what machine language coding is. I am also aware of the internal structure of computing chips and its evolution from the good ol' days of the 8086.

(here's a great read about DG developing a new computer back in the day https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Soul_of_a_New_Machine)


A z80 can do the exact same things given time? That's a big fat no. OTOH, if you know a way of having 8 bit chips run 32 bit apps, you'd be a gazillionaire.

 

Depends doesn't it.

If you remove your foot, I might be able to understand you.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/global-precision.php

Introduction

What is a range of uncertainty?
Evaluating the temperature of the entire planet has an inherent level of uncertainty. Because of this, NCEI provides values that describe the range of this uncertainty, or simply "range", of each month's, season's or year's global temperature anomaly. These values are provided as plus/minus values. For example, a month's temperature anomaly may be reported as "0.54°C above the 20th Century average, plus or minus 0.08°C." This may be written in shorthand as "+0.54°C +/- 0.08°C." Scientists, statisticians and mathematicians have several terms for this concept, such as "precision", "margin of error" or "confidence interval".

 

ah yes rankings - oh look its more science!!

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13/supplemental/page-1

Oh and just to demonstrate to you that NASA et al. actually use the probability rankings
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/noaa-nasa_global_analysis-2016.pdf

 

Weather models and climate models are *exactly* like a Model T and a Ferrari. You sit in a drivers seat with a steering wheel controlling a car with wheels and an engine that can be completely described with the same thermodynamic equations!

They are *exactly* the same application. The difference is in the materials used, not the basic physics!

A formula one car *is* merely a faster Model T! Do you think they didn't race Model T's back in the day?

It's not obvious that *YOU* understand that!

Why did you bring up the subject of a supercomputer if you didn't mean to imply that it was "smarter"?

What you know can be told from the assertions you make. Bragging means nothing!

Then you *should* know that a Z80 can do the exact same things an I7 can do, just not as fast. It's not obvious that you know that!

An 8bit chip *can* run 32bit apps. You just have to do a lot more register manipulation to do it, which slows things down even more! You brag about your computer knowledge and you don't understand that?

from wikepedia: "Some floating-point hardware only supports the simplest operations - addition, subtraction, and multiplication. But even the most complex floating-point hardware has a finite number of operations it can support - for example, none of them directly support arbitrary-precision arithmetic.

When a CPU is executing a program that calls for a floating-point operation that is not directly supported by the hardware, the CPU uses a series of simpler floating-point operations. In systems without any floating-point hardware, the CPU emulates it using a series of simpler fixed-point arithmetic operations that run on the integer arithmetic logic unit.

The software that lists the necessary series of operations to emulate floating-point operations is often packaged in a floating-point library."

You would have a far harder time running 8-bit developed apps on a 32-bit processor than the other way around!

You keep on just UNDERWHELMING me with your demonstrated lack of knowledge!

 

ROFL!!! Did you bother to read this reference?

• Warmest year on record: 48.0%

In other words it was more likely that it was *NOT* the warmest year on record. Yet NASA proclaimed that it was anyway!

Like I said - lying to the public hoping no one would know!

Do you see *ANY* range of probabilities for the temperature in *any* of the graphs in this reference?

Take Page 4, the temperatures are shown as dots, not a range! That doesn't indicate any margin of error for the measurements! The probability of being the hottest year is *NOT* the same as a margin of error for the measurement!

Like I said, why do climate scientists not want the public to know the margin of error of the measurements?

 

You keep running around with the goal posts in your hands.

 

It can, it just takes different handling of the data and yes, it will be slower.

The first computer I worked on was a 50 bit IBM computer. 48 databits and 2 parity bits. This was back in the 60's-70's. It had features that made it faster than the replacement computers due to being able to mask bits. The replacements were just coded differently to handle the same data but needed more steps to duplicate the 50 bit flow through.

 

No, you keep posting references that don't say what you think they say. I have been *very* consistent in talking about the margin of error of the measurements. I gave you a reference on metrology and land temperature measurements.

And you return with a reference that proves what I said, climate scientists don't want us to know the margin of error for their input data let alone the margin of error for the climate model outputs!

 

Except they are openly and rather pointedly tellingus what those margins of error are.

But Scientists don't write the stories for media, do they?

 

No, they are *NOT*telling us what the margins of error are. If they were showing that then the temperature readings would not be dots, they would be bars showing a margin of error or each point would consist of three dots, one showing the mean plus the margin of error, one showing the mean, and one showing the mean minus the margin of error!

Go here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=L162ogdej6k

It shows how you can show a margin of error in Excel.

 

As I understand it there's constantly a certain amount of background radiation in the atmosphere. As for my being an alarmist - alarmists can often raise awareness of an issue - sometimes one which could become crucial to mankind, and which hasn't yet been considered to be a threat by the vast majority? I look at it like I'm providing a valuable public service.

 

ROFL!! And you think we can do anything about background radiation?

Alarmists do a disservice to humanity by forcing decisions to be made on an emotional, irrational basis instead of an evidence-based, rational basis.

 

Radioactive waste is one of the biggest threats to our future generations. Current containment vessels of wastes, with half-lifes of hundreds of thousands of years, are only rated for 200 years. Prior to the mid-1970s, there were no regulations on the dumping of radioactive wastes in the sea, and this was common practice. The mafia has illegally been dumping radioactive wastes off the coast of the governmentless Somalia for many years.

Radioactive particles can be ingested or inhaled. A friend of mine retired from Los Alamos, and regarding radioactive particles, he said, "If your lucky, it will pass right through you". You ever wonder why perfectly healthy people get large cancerous tumors? And once the tumor is surgically, often they are fine. It's proven that radiation causes cancer - no doubt about it. Cancer rates have been rising for many years.

Now, back to the dumping of wastes. The containment used in the '70s was often steel barrels. They are deteriorating. Eventually that waste will be in the sea, and consumed by sea creatures. Even if you avoid the seafood, it can wash ashore, and get in the air and food chain other ways.

 

You've been absorbing too much FOX and fossil fuel industry misinformation. The models have been extremely accurate, and I posted a link in this thread that stated this. That particular report was part of the National Climate Assessment of 2014, and was authored by over 300 scientific experts. It was reviewed by numerous groups, the public, and the National Academy of Scientists.

I would suggest that you review this document. Take the evidence presented in the report, do the research, and then try to refute it. You will probably discover very quickly that the fossil fuel industry is putting out lies and misinformation. Remember the tobacco industry in the 1950s and 1960s?

 

Stating it does not make it fact. The actual observed science says you are wrong.

 

The difference is I provided a link and evidence, and then stated it. As usual, you blurt something out, without the slightest shred of evidence. Surely you can do better than that!!!

 

Millar et al. (2017)
Fyfe et al. (2013)

Even the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report acknowledges model over-estimation of recent warming in their Figure 9.8 and accompanying discussion in Box 9.2.

 

Nice job of deflecting. You totally whiffed on what to do with all the toxic waste from the batteries used for alternative energy. Why am I not surprised?

 

How can the models be accurate when the IPCC, in its 2014 report, says the models didn't predict the current warming hiatus and no one knows why the hiatus has occurred?

The US National Climate Assessment is a POLITICAL document more than it is a scientific one. Why doesn't it recognize the warming hiatus the way the IPCC did?

Is the IPCC putting out lies and misinformation?