2014 was the hottest year globally on record..by far

[longview]

Believe it or not I caught this the 70 or 80 other times it was posted.

Just clarifying who was saying it would be cooling and his rational.
It is just a theory until it is validated or invalidated.

 

[Threegoofs]

Actually one Scientist A Dr. Richard Evans has his Solar Notch delay theory.
BIG NEWS VIII: New solar theory predicts imminent global cooling « JoNova
Which is an actual theory with an invalidation criteria.
He claims to have fit the temperature increase since about 1620 to changes in Solar activity,
and further states that if he is correct, we should see up to a .5 C drop in global
temperatures by 2017.
At least he has driven a stake in the ground for what he thinks.
We will know if he is correct or not, within a few years.

He outlined his theory on a blog. A denier blog.

I'm pretty sure there's a reason it's not published....

 

[longview]

He outlined his theory on a blog. A denier blog.

I'm pretty sure there's a reason it's not published....

He put it out there in the public domain, for anyone to shoot down.
It is a more complete theory than the concept of AGW, as he actually
has an invalidation criteria. Do you know what the invalidation criteria
is for the concept of AGW? They seem to have left that off.
At least we will know in several years if Dr. Evans theory holds water.

 

[Threegoofs]

He put it out there in the public domain, for anyone to shoot down.
It is a more complete theory than the concept of AGW, as he actually
has an invalidation criteria. Do you know what the invalidation criteria
is for the concept of AGW? They seem to have left that off.
At least we will know in several years if Dr. Evans theory holds water.

LOL.

When you put a scientific theory out, you do it in the scientific literature.

When you put a crackpot theory out, you put it on a blog.

When you have a politically motivated crackpot theory, you put it on a denier blog.

 

[longview]

LOL.

When you put a scientific theory out, you do it in the scientific literature.

When you put a crackpot theory out, you put it on a blog.

When you have a politically motivated crackpot theory, you put it on a denier blog.

Not always, and have any shown his theory incorrect?
The basics are that he says it will start to cool by 2017.
The AGW group has said it will cross the 2 C threshold by 2036 (Mann, Scientific American 2014)
The difference between a theory and a concept is that we will know if Evans is correct
by the end of 2017. As it stands right now, there is no standard of data that will
invalidate AGW.
The idea behind opening the arpanet to the public was to allow the free exchange of ideas,
Perhaps Dr. Evans is just ahead of the curve.

 

[Threegoofs]

Not always, and have any shown his theory incorrect?
The basics are that he says it will start to cool by 2017.
The AGW group has said it will cross the 2 C threshold by 2036 (Mann, Scientific American 2014)
The difference between a theory and a concept is that we will know if Evans is correct
by the end of 2017. As it stands right now, there is no standard of data that will
invalidate AGW.
The idea behind opening the arpanet to the public was to allow the free exchange of ideas,
Perhaps Dr. Evans is just ahead of the curve.

Lets see an example of a fully fleshed scientific theory that overturns a solid scientific consensus.... that was fully formed on a blog and published there exclusively.

I'd also love to see a guy who hawks gold (Im not kidding) or is generally considered a nutjob who has overturned such established science. Evans is such a nut he literallly defines the edge of the denier fringe.

Advancing this theory should lead to poster embarrassment. Seems like it keeps returning - like a bad penny though.

 

[Jack Hays]

Lets see an example of a fully fleshed scientific theory that overturns a solid scientific consensus.... that was fully formed on a blog and published there exclusively.

I'd also love to see a guy who hawks gold (Im not kidding) or is generally considered a nutjob who has overturned such established science. Evans is such a nut he literallly defines the edge of the denier fringe.

Advancing this theory should lead to poster embarrassment. Seems like it keeps returning - like a bad penny though.

Yup, Evans is a real lightweight.:roll:

[h=1]David Evans[/h] [h=2]Credentials[/h]

• Ph.D. Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
• M.S. Electrical Engineering, Stanford University.
• M.S. Statistics, Stanford University.
• M.A. Applied Mathematics, University Of Sydney.
• B.E. Electrical Engineering, University Of Sydney, Sydney Australia, University Medal (1983).
• B.Sc. Applied Mathematics and Physics, University Of Sydney.

Source: [1]

 

[Threegoofs]

Yup, Evans is a real lightweight.:roll:

[h=1]David Evans[/h] [h=2]Credentials[/h]

• Ph.D. Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
• M.S. Electrical Engineering, Stanford University.
• M.S. Statistics, Stanford University.
• M.A. Applied Mathematics, University Of Sydney.
• B.E. Electrical Engineering, University Of Sydney, Sydney Australia, University Medal (1983).
• B.Sc. Applied Mathematics and Physics, University Of Sydney.

Source: [1]

Given those credentials, we can only hope that his posting a detailed 'scientific theory' on a blog means that his career has 'hit bottom'. I guess he can go lower than that, but its a tough act to follow.

 

[Mithrae]

It is a more complete theory than the concept of AGW, as he actually
has an invalidation criteria. Do you know what the invalidation criteria
is for the concept of AGW? They seem to have left that off.

As it stands right now, there is no standard of data that will
invalidate AGW.

There is a very obvious and simple falsification criterion for 'AGW'; show that atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases don't absorb and re-emit longwave radiation.

Sometimes these things are just so darn obvious that you can't see the wood for the trees, amiright?

Here's another, equally obvious falsification criterion; show that even if it does create a 'greenhouse effect,' CO2's absorption capacity became saturated somewhere below concentrations of 400ppm.

Of course, we both know these falsification criteria almost certainly won't be met, because the science is based on facts, not speculation. But it takes an extraordinarily special kind of mind to decide that because these are facts, there is no falsification criterion, and therefore it must be an invalid theory :lol:

Heck if you really want one, here's a third falsification criterion which is at least marginally more plausible: Show beyond any doubt that some other factor/s are responsible for the overwhelming majority of the observed modern warming, and thus (however likely it currently seems) it cannot be due to anthropogenic GHGs.

More specific aspects of 'AGW' all have their falsification criteria too - show that hotter temperatures don't mean more atmospheric water vapour; show that hotter temperatures don't mean retreating sea ice; show that water vapour and albedo don't have the effects they seem to have - but I rather suspect that you were not interested in discussing trivial details like that:

You merely wanted to repeat a common 'sceptic' rhetorical point which, as we can see, must have been subjected to all of half a second's thought before being parroted as fact. That's the 'sceptic' way! :lamo

 

[Lord of Planar]

Just clarifying who was saying it would be cooling and his rational.
It is just a theory until it is validated or invalidated.

Not only that, but the claim is "up to." Seems to me that a 0.001 degree decrease would make his claim accurate.

 

[Lord of Planar]

He outlined his theory on a blog. A denier blog.

I'm pretty sure there's a reason it's not published....

Like most publishers are "for profit" publishers...

 

[Lord of Planar]

LOL.
When you put a crackpot theory out, you put it on a blog.

Do you mean like Real Climate and Skeptical Science?

 

[Matter]

It's known that heat content has increased. That's the point.

No, your point with the graph was to illustrate the temperatures were rising in those charts. Some scientists -like that Science article- are contending it has been on pause and they're not sure if the temperature is increasing at all. You know the part of that quote that you left off. Funny how you did that.

 

[Threegoofs]

No, your point with the graph was to illustrate the temperatures were rising in those charts. Some scientists -like that Science article- are contending it has been on pause and they're not sure if the temperature is increasing at all. You know the part of that quote that you left off. Funny how you did that.

It's known that the heat content of the earth has increased. And that's the point.

 

[Verax]

Yup, Evans is a real lightweight.:roll:

[h=1]David Evans[/h] [h=2]Credentials[/h]

• Ph.D. Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
• M.S. Electrical Engineering, Stanford University.
• M.S. Statistics, Stanford University.
• M.A. Applied Mathematics, University Of Sydney.
• B.E. Electrical Engineering, University Of Sydney, Sydney Australia, University Medal (1983).
• B.Sc. Applied Mathematics and Physics, University Of Sydney.

Source: [1]

Also from that source... :shock:

According to his bio, Evans claims to be a “Rocket Scientist,” and one article describes him as a “Top Rocket Scientist.” While Evans's background does show that he has a Ph.D. in electrical engineering, there is no evidence that he was ever employed as a rocket scientist.

When DeSmogBlog contacted Evans regarding his claim of being a rocket scientist, Evans replied that “In US academic and industry parlance, 'rocket scientist' means anyone who has completed a PhD in one of the hard sciences at one of the top US institutions.”

Evans also claims to be “building a word processor for Windows.” DeSmogBlog contacted Microsoft and they have confirmed that he does not work for them.

Is this a joke? What kind of quackadoodledoo crap is this?

Evans is an editor for the Australian edition of GoldNerds, a company that sells information about gold companies to investors. He also does private mathematics research. [1]

David Evans gained media attention after an article he wrote titled, “No smoking hot spot,” which was published in The Australian in June, 2008. The article claims that climate change is not caused by C02 emissions because there is no evidence of “a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics.” [2]

Evans's claim has been thoroughly debunked by Tim Lambert, a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales. [3]
While Evans says in “My Life With the AGO and Other Observations” that “[he] know a heck of a lot about modeling and computers,” he states clearly that he is “not a climate modeler.”

 

[Threegoofs]

Also from that source... :shock:



Is this a joke? What kind of quackadoodledoo crap is this?

It's telling who around here takes him seriously.

 

[Linc]

And the results of the hot October and December here in Illinois have been to hurt energy companies that depend on the cold winters and late falls.
Nuclear plants are losing money for several years in a row right now as more alternative energy comes on line, they say.
All while natural gas is dirt cheap--Americans have accidentally cutback in a cohesive unorganized way to create a glut of energy .

It's telling who around here takes him seriously.

 

[longview]

Lets see an example of a fully fleshed scientific theory that overturns a solid scientific consensus.... that was fully formed on a blog and published there exclusively.

I'd also love to see a guy who hawks gold (Im not kidding) or is generally considered a nutjob who has overturned such established science. Evans is such a nut he literallly defines the edge of the denier fringe.

Advancing this theory should lead to poster embarrassment. Seems like it keeps returning - like a bad penny though.

In the 19th and 20th centuries Scientific Journals were the best way of disseminating new ideas.
But they are a double edge sword, is as much as they possess the power to limit new ideas.
The internet changed much of that, Ideas can now be discussed from around the world in seconds.
The strength and weaknesses of an idea can be debated in moments instead of the months
it took with journals.
The rest of the world has embraced the internet, Perhaps it is time for Science to do so as well.

 

[longview]

There is a very obvious and simple falsification criterion for 'AGW'; show that atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases don't absorb and re-emit longwave radiation.

Sometimes these things are just so darn obvious that you can't see the wood for the trees, amiright?

Here's another, equally obvious falsification criterion; show that even if it does create a 'greenhouse effect,' CO2's absorption capacity became saturated somewhere below concentrations of 400ppm.

Of course, we both know these falsification criteria almost certainly won't be met, because the science is based on facts, not speculation. But it takes an extraordinarily special kind of mind to decide that because these are facts, there is no falsification criterion, and therefore it must be an invalid theory :lol:

AGW is not based on weather CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but on a predicted amplification
of the somewhat accepted direct response of CO2.

Heck if you really want one, here's a third falsification criterion which is at least marginally more plausible: Show beyond any doubt that some other factor/s are responsible for the overwhelming majority of the observed modern warming, and thus (however likely it currently seems) it cannot be due to anthropogenic GHGs.

This is the better theory method. but is not a invalidation criteria.

More specific aspects of 'AGW' all have their falsification criteria too - show that hotter temperatures don't mean more atmospheric water vapour; show that hotter temperatures don't mean retreating sea ice; show that water vapour and albedo don't have the effects they seem to have - but I rather suspect that you were not interested in discussing trivial details like that:

Alternative AGW would have to prove added clouds from additional water vapor have a positive feedback.
That the predicted amplified gain, is present in the existing data.
I can discuss the trivia, but it is useless here, the core concepts of AGW have still not been validated.
the Feedback could only be present in the data if the sensitivity of CO2 is lower that the IPCC states,
but if the input is lower the amplification is lower.
It all circles back to a warming of about 1.6 C for a doubling of CO2, over a 200 year period.

You merely wanted to repeat a common 'sceptic' rhetorical point which, as we can see, must have been subjected to all of half a second's thought before being parroted as fact. That's the 'sceptic' way!

I don't read the skeptic blogs much, I just don't like the bastardization of Science that is AGW.

 

[longview]

Not only that, but the claim is "up to." Seems to me that a 0.001 degree decrease would make his claim accurate.

I Think I read that the cooling will be between .1 and .5 C.

 

[Matter]

It's known that the heat content of the earth has increased. And that's the point.

Then explain the difference in your graphs and the quote stating the temperatures are not increasing.... you know pausing... which is contrary to the entire OP.

 

[Threegoofs]

In the 19th and 20th centuries Scientific Journals were the best way of disseminating new ideas.
But they are a double edge sword, is as much as they possess the power to limit new ideas.
The internet changed much of that, Ideas can now be discussed from around the world in seconds.
The strength and weaknesses of an idea can be debated in moments instead of the months
it took with journals.
The rest of the world has embraced the internet, Perhaps it is time for Science to do so as well.

Perhaps. But when the proponents of this shovel crap like Evans 'theory', it makes you understand why peer reviewed, edited, high quality journals are even more important these days.

 

[Threegoofs]

Then explain the difference in your graphs and the quote stating the temperatures are not increasing.... you know pausing... which is contrary to the entire OP.

When the current year is the warmest year ever recorded, I think we can definitively say that temperatures are increasing.

 

[longview]

Perhaps. But when the proponents of this shovel crap like Evans 'theory', it makes you understand why peer reviewed, edited, high quality journals are even more important these days.

Why do You think Evans theory is crap?
He is practicing the Scientific method, His theory is his interpretation of the empirical data.
Neither his or the IPCC's concepts have been validated or invalidated.

 

[Threegoofs]

Why do You think Evans theory is crap?
He is practicing the Scientific method, His theory is his interpretation of the empirical data.
Neither his or the IPCC's concepts have been validated or invalidated.

Well, do you think the Unabombers manifesto is crap? It's published on the Internet too! And he's a really smart guy!

How about the chelation theory of removing toxins? It's on the Internet! Worth a shot, huh?

I haven't read those either, because I understand the concept of low yield.