And of course, besides cherry picking, the followers of JAQs just doubled down on just more JAQs, anything to not deal with the actual science, in the end, for all practical reasons they are insinuating that what the scientists quoted did was not science, but as pointed before, it is not my problem if they want to be recognized as just defenders of their own ignorance.
If there is no capacity of imagining how to go about on falsifying a scientific paper, then the less of chance is there that they would follow anyone that has showed them for a long time that they are trying to push a strawman on the very person that they are “debating”. A very dumb point to make but I do not have a problem on letting the JAQs posters to gain even more bad karma.
Exactly. That is precisely the point: there is so much uncertainty and ambiguity. And lack of knowledge, lack of processing power, etc. etc.
Modeling the climate is an incredibly complex and difficult thing to do and I seriously doubt there is anyone even close to being able to do it accurately.
And if any attention had been paid, it should had been clear that models to do a good job on predicting overall climate trends; the problem with resolution at the level of hurricanes and tornadoes has been granted for ages, but there is ongoing work to increase that resolution:
Bottom line, once again the attempt is to apply the valid criticism of models with items like hurricanes and tornadoes and recklessly apply it to all other model work.
But that is the entire topic of this thread: the ability or lack of ability of scientists to accurately make predictions about storms (trends, as in numbers, intensity, etc.) due to climate change.
Nope, no conditional here, you are talking here about modeling the climate and then telling all that anyone is close to being able to do it accurately, not the already acknowledged to death issues with modeling hurricanes and tornadoes.
But we already knew that, as demonstrated, not paying attention even for what they posted early.
And already acknowledged, by even the scientists quoted, once again the JAQ effort to continue to tell others what one has not claimed here is very clear, and this also demonstrates that no attention was paid, Emmanuel and the others quoted regarding the increase on intensity are not using models, but using actual recorded data to report an observed increase in the intensity of hurricanes.
As in this thread, I asked GIGO to supply the falsification criteria of his choice. For reasons I’ve never fully understood, he supplied an absolutist test that was perfectly consistent with picking a span of years after the fact; I responded accordingly. Had he supplied a better test, I’d have reacted to it instead.
I sure wish he’d gotten it right the first time.
Possibly because GIGO realized his error, he later provided completely different falsification criteria. Again, if he’d provided sensible criteria to begin with, I’d have applied 'em – and now that he’s shifted the goalposts to before-the-fact ten-year trends, I’m equally happy to apply his all-new and all-different criteria.
You fault me for having been in violation of correct statistical reasoning – for blandly and straightforwardly applying the terms GIGO provided?
Here, take a look at GIGO’s latest:
[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
If there is no capacity of imagining how to go about on falsifying a scientific paper
[/QUOTE]
Stop right there and really consider that: GIGO wants me to imagine up a way to falsify the claims – and my point, as ever, is that, no, the guy making the claims should specify what would falsify them. And just as I wouldn’t dream of imagining up falsification criteria now, I didn’t imagine 'em up then.
The difference here is that GIGO won’t supply criteria as before – but neither time was it my place to say what would prove him wrong; it’s his call all the way.
And thank you for doing what I **expected **it was going to happen since a Meh ago.
For several posts you demanded that I tell you about falsifying an item that Emmanuel already did, showing all that you are not paying attention.
And no, you only are admitting here to all that I was correct: you are implying big time that what the quoted scientists did was not science, in essence you are only confirming to all that for all that your the boasting of understanding what falsification is is actually inadequate; you only have the toy version to use, as you only admit that even when pointed at the science paper, you are not able to figure out even a very simple falsification, the bankruptcy of your methods is here for all to see, you are only capable of demanding an anonymous poster in a message boardto create a second hand falsification when the science paper was cited, deal with with it and falsify him, or just admit that you are only JAQ for FUD.
I’m implying nothing of the sort. Why not simply ask me what I think, rather than simply jumping to that conclusion?
That’s the honesty of my methods. Again, you conclude I’m unable to figure out a falsification; the truth, of course, is that I believe those who make predictions should provide their own falsification criteria.
If you can’t, you reveal your claims to be – well, bankrupt.
You’re the one who’s right here, in this thread, making claims and replying to questions; I can ask you – first hand – what would prove you wrong. Sure, if the author of the paper were here, I’d ask him; so long as you cite him, I’ll ask you.
If you won’t answer, you probably shouldn’t cite him to begin with – but if you both happen to hold the same position, why not shout it from the rooftops? If you truly believe X will happen in Y years, such that anything less will prove you wrong, then why refuse to trumpet your own beliefs?
Anyone can see that I already replied with the second hand falsification on post #104, regardless that it leads to more questions for you, the reality is that you congratulated me for it, so it is not my problem that you are continuing to fight against yourself.
For more advanced answers to the questions, there is the published science already, since you already acknowledged that I did indeed offer already a falsification, it is indeed your turn now, look at the science and learn from it.
Or just admit once again that you are only JAQ.
(And anyone can also notice how he removed my point about Emmanuel, we do not want to remind anyone about how silly it was to demand a falsification of what what was already falsified (the upward trend in the number of hurricanes)
2 - Let’s make a deal: how about you and I stick to basic facts and opinions and ignore the other stuff. I won’t say you aren’t making sense if you will quit with the “not paying attention” and each of us can just point out facts or arguments or state opinions.
I’ll start:
30 years of data in the Atlantic region only is a fairly short time period and just partial data. Yep there appears to be a relation based on that data, but with something this big and complex it would be a large assumption to think it’s as simple as that. Maybe it is, but (opinion) it’s way too early to know because there is too much missing data and too much work to be done.
If it turns out hurricanes in other parts of the world don’t follow the same pattern, then we could correctly infer that we can’t just relate water temp to an increase, the model would need to be more complex. If the other areas didn’t follow the same pattern as the Atlantic region, then a climate model that is reasonably “accurate” would model this same behavior, increase in one area decrease in another. That is the level of climate model I seriously doubt is currently available. And in my non-expert opinion, a dynamic system this large and complex is likely to have local variation like that which can in turn have long term affects on the system (positive feedback, negative feedback, etc.).
Nope, read it again, it is not models what I was citing about regarding the increase in intensity of the Hurricanes, the problem here is that you are still attempting to make it a model issue when it is not.
And once again you are not getting that you are reaching for a straw man, it is not my point that hurricanes can be modeled accurately nor their numbers, now the average climate? Models have lots of success in that front.
Once again, what scientists report is that the resolution is not there yet to make accurate predictions regarding hurricanes and tornadoes; however, it is real empirical data what is telling us that hurricanes are intensifying, as the warming is increasing the levels of water vapor in the rainy areas, it does not take a model to tell you what it is the most likely outcome if GWG are not controlled.
1 - What is JAQ? You’ve accused me of being part of that effort, it seems only polite to at least explain what it is, thanks.
Predictions for the future in a dynamic system require more than just a trend from recent history. Predictions based on a simple trend have an implied simple model, but complex dynamic systems like the climate are unlikely to be simple.
But the point of the thread was changes in future storm activity, that can only be determined by some modeling system.
In the Atlantic region only according to that paper you cited. And during a short period of time.
Did you see my point about “what if other regions don’t follow same trend”?
Check the video again. For example the increase in water vapor and energy in the background doesn’t require a computer model, it was found in the data of satellites, weather balloons and other empirical sources.
No, what ‘anyone can see’ is that I followed up with those questions because – as far as I can tell – you simply hadn’t relayed falsification criteria in post #104. Did you dispute that by assuring me post #104 contained the criteria in question? No, you started going on and on about a lack of imagination.
If post #104 truly had been sufficient, you wouldn’t have needed to say a word about imagination – and I would’ve had no follow-up questions.
(You say “it leads to more questions”, but look closely: they’re the same questions. Seeing no answers in #104, I of course asked 'em again.)
Once again, I have no idea what you’re talking about; as has been repeatedly pointed out, I asked for an entirely different falsification.
Cast your memory back to when you posted the following sentence, not in reference to the number of hurricanes in general but to something else in particular: “This means that as sea temperatures continue to rise, the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land will inevitably increase.” In defiance of all known laws of grammar, you eventually spelled out that, no, the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land will not inevitably increase.
That’s a completely separate issue from the lack of an upward trend in the number of hurricanes in general: it’s entirely possible to have either without the other, it’s entirely possible to have both or neither; the answer to one question in no way implies the answer to the other.
I also was suspecting that you still got stuck in demanding that I falsify what I already reported it was falsified, scientists like Emmanuel already showed that there was no trend with the number of hurricanes, and as pointed before, you only can continue to demand that I put flesh on the straw man.
Stop being silly, I already pointed many times before that you need to post **another *** quote from Elsner to show that he is going for the meaning that you are still pathetically demanding is the absolute meaning of the quote. Once again the summary of his paper demonstrates that he is not talking about the number of the hurricanes. And put down your toy falsification tool.
The refusal to do it is only stamping in the minds of all that you are only cherry picking.
And you suspected incorrectly, because I was requesting something else entirely. Indeed, you incorrectly suspect a great many things.
I’m demanding nothing of the sort. I’ve repeatedly and emphatically granted, for the sake of argument, that you believe it means the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land will not inevitably increase. I’m not discussing what he actually meant by that prediction; I can’t ask him what he thinks would prove him wrong, but you’re right here believing stuff and replying to questions.
You keep trying to make that point, and I keep telling you the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land is a completely separate issue.
Stop relaying vague predictions and I’ll stop asking you what would falsify them; offer falsification criteria and I’ll apply them. If you object to either of those, then your position doesn’t even rise to the level of “toy”.
Meh, more silly useless points, and once again not the ones I’m talking about.
Doubling down on the cherry picking is not helpful at all, but as always I do not mind if oponenets are willing to get that fame in this message board, as even real scientists like **jshore **told me with their support on several occasions in the past, it is clear that I do get what the scientists report.
