I have said previously that observations are very deceptive that’s why you need a theory to explain the observation, and also predict some yet unobserved phenomena. No one has ever come up with a good satisfactory explanation of the double-slit-experiment yet, although the theory is unprecedented in the accuracy of its predictions.

Paradigm said…
You also bring up one case where models deviate from recorded data (1940-1960).

There is no proof, but since universality is not observed in climate models, then one can be suspicious that either its foundations are wrong/false (history has shown that this is to be the case) or its formulations are correct, but inapplicable physical parameters are being used, such as Stefan-Boltzman parameters, etc.

Yep, that one of the issue that Schwartz et al paper on climate feedback sensitivity highlighted in 2007, that the current IPCC treats this parameter as a constant, which they think that the parameter is not after all a constant but a time-varying parameter, ie, a function of time. It can switch from being a positive feedback to being a negative feedback at different time. They Schwartz claimed that the range of values for feedback sensitivity can explained that temperature dip.

Physics is about consistency, not something that works here but failed there, which is something that you don’t seem to understand. You keep bringing up that if it satisfactorily works enough in this domain then that’s all we need. Particle physics standard model seemed to work perfectly (as according to your logic), but now it is being questioned of why can’t it explain the weaknesses of gravity in comparison to other 3 fundamental forces. Should we care about finding out the truth of the WHYs or should we just simply stick with what we currently have because it works well in the domain that we’re interested in? The answer is no. String theorists think that they can solve that problem by proposing multi-dimensional universe and so forth. The claim of AGW was mainly confirmed by statistical tests and physics isn’t statistics.

Paradigm said…
Finally I am rather disturbed with your statement that because of the “economics”, we must hold science to a different standard.

No, it is relevant because it affects our lifes. The debate whether quantum mechanics is correct or string theory is correct, is largely irrelevant to the daily life of the general public , except perhaps when researchers are asking for taxpayer dollars. Imagine, if the claim of QM and Multiverse are to be politicized, then we will see this same debate on AGW being applied in there too. Some scientists will perhaps (hypothetically) claimed that other universes may have superior beings that have the potential to cross into our universe and do damage.

They may advocate to taxed everyone heavily on earth to build some intergalactic defensive system in order to protect us from such hypothetical potential invasion. If you don’t believe me, then try do some readings on various quantum mechanic’s interpretations on the net and you see what I mean. These top-notch theorists are not saying that there will something out there that have the potential to cross into our universe to do damage, but they’re sort of talking indirectly about possibility. What’s the common ground theme here? Yep, mathematics has taken over the nature of physical reality. Mathematics is now the reality. Aren’t we seeing this from IPCC oracles, these days ? Yes we do. Computer numerical modelings are now the substitute for physical reality. The issue is the politicization of science and this has got everything to do with questioning the mentality that we applied to science. Do you imagine that had the AGW science debate been left to its own, that there would be any uproar today that we’re currently seeing everywhere? The answer is NO. No one would give a toss if we’re causing the warming or not. Now, I hope that you can see that simple logic right there.

-It began when you put up a badly written paper, which you claimed was being unfairly criticised. I showed the authors made elementary mistakes which invalidated the claims in its abstract. Eventually after much prose on scientific history (as opposed to science), you admit that their second law assumption was moronic. I went on to rubbish their one remaining quantitative section.

-Since then you have thrown up objections which display a poor understanding of the science, for example you complain about not taking scattering into account when you, yourself go on to state that it only needs to be considered as wavelength tends to molecule size. Something which clearly does not hold for the IR region and below we are interested in.

-You also suggest that Stefan Boltzmann won’t hold for molecules because they rotate, when in fact that is irrelevant (actually it will serve to spread the adsorbance spectra out by providing roto-vibrational transitions, and therefore offer a greater approximation to a continuum)

-When pushed for evidence, you then repeatedly reach for “progress in physics”, which might generously be described as “notorious for poor peer review”. It is not a trustworthy source of information.

-Finally we have the wall of text attack which either consists of the aforementioned irrelvant historical review, or a series of rapid fire irrelevant questions, punctuated with “do you understand?”

Speaking of the Stefan Boltzmann law, I think you will find the original derivation by boltzmann holds when sections of the EM spectra are missing and even in the case when the EM is monochromatic. Planck’s derivation requires a complete continuum, however boltzmann’s does not – which is probably why the T^4 proportionality finds such wide experimental agreement. Sure you need an experimentally determined prefactor, but as I said the emisivity is experimentally well known.

You also bring up one case where models deviate from recorded data (1940-1960). However you seem to be insinuating that this is to do with the use of Stefan Boltzmann – there is no proof of this. Indeed were it Stefan Boltzmann you’d most likely see a far more general disagreement than over one brief time period. It is far more likely that it is something else at fault.

We can use these theories without much care about what reality that underpins them , since they are useful and give reasonably good agreements between theory and observations. We can’t apply the same mentality to climate models, since there is a huge economic effect that will result in just doing that.

Finally I am rather disturbed with your statement that because of the “economics”, we must hold science to a different standard. Economic considerations are irrelevant to the science, which ultimately can only be judged on (a) predictive ability and (b) the relative complexity of theories. The economic considerations are a matter for policy makers, not the scientists. Science doesn’t change just because it means a toss up between econmic hardship or a game of roulette for the policy makers.

Nausea inducing creeps.

..and he’s not African American, he’s Kenyan.

6. Election of Obama as president – The rallying cries of hope and Yes, we can! resulting in the historic election of an African-American to the US presidency.

A former MP, along with three other people, is likely to stand with trial in August next year on charges of fraud involving nearly $2 million.

The four have name suppression, which was continued today in Auckland District Court. They will appear for another callover in March before their trial, which is scheduled for August.

The Serious Fraud Office alleges the four were involved in a $1.8m swindle of Auckland sports clubs, a children’s charity and various companies set up around gaming machines.

The three men and one woman faced 17 charges, including fraud and obstructing the course of justice.

Hmm. Sunny day here in Auckland. The Stars and Stripes are flying from the upper balcony, barbecue’s going fine – and the wife and I have been listening all day to 93XRT streaming on iTunes. It’s the Indie Beat session right now.

All I need is the Cubs in the background.

….Oh God….. I can’t believe I wrote that last sentence.

He’s a funny prick, but some of his stuff is cringeworthy.

I would not say he is a right wing hero, as you pointed out he is way to soft on our Prime Ministers.

What he is though is the best entertainer on our television, he is funny, terribly un PC and not afraid to point out the blindingly obvious.

Years ago I used to watch a guy called Johnny Vaughan on a programme called the Big Breakfast which screened on channel four in the UK, Paul Henry is the closest thing we have to him IMHO.

Neither was malcolm’s irrational disjointed rubbish.

I can try to explain it differently, if you’re having trouble, Red.

I also listened to NPR when I lived in Chicago. I quite like Ira Glass. Funny name and funny voice.

Neither was malcolm’s irrational disjointed rubbish.

…..would you be so worried about free-speech for a state-funded progressive broadcaster, if they were being attacked by a campaign orchestrated by a right-wing shock-jock?

Not a precise comparison, but as a champion of free speech and someone who rather enjoyed listening to Mara Liasson on NPR for all those years in Chicago, I think the following is very worrying since it is happening in the US.

The summoning of Mara Liasson

if he is a right wing hero, then its true, we are fucked as a nation.

tune in tomorrow for humor 12 year olds would appreciate, followed by buck-tooth nerd smiling at some poor bastard off camera.