Paths To Knowledge (dot Science)

What is actually real in Objective Reality? How do you know? Now, prove it's real!

Archive for November 29th, 2009

When Soothsaying, ahem, Predicting, the Future Weather and Climate, Accuracy Matters and as such the AGW Hypothesis fails while the Solar Weather Technique succeeds!

Posted by pwl on November 29, 2009

What is the difference between a soothsayer and an accurate prediction and forecasting foretelling the future weather and climate? Methodology and accuracy of results. First let’s define the terms.

A prediction is a statement or claim that a particular event will occur in the future in more certain terms than a forecast. The etymology of the word is Latin (præ-, “before,” and dicere, “to say“). Howard H. Stevenson writes: “Prediction is at least two things: Important and hard.” Important, because we have to act, and hard because we have to realize the future we want, and what is the best way to get there.

In a scientific context, a prediction is a rigorous, (often quantitative), statement forecasting what will happen under specific conditions, typically expressed in the form If A is true, then B will also be true. The scientific method is built on testing assertions which are logical consequences of scientific theories. This is done through repeatable experiments or observational studies.

A scientific theory whose assertions are not in accordance with observations and evidence will probably be rejected. Theories that make no testable predictions remain protosciences until testable predictions become known to the community.

Additionally, if new theories generate many new predictions, they are often highly valued, for they can be quickly and easily confirmed or falsified (see predictive power). In many scientific fields, desirable theories are those which predict a large number of events from relatively few underlying principles.

A soothsayer is a person who claims to speak sooth (truth or reality, smooth (political savy, gift of the gaff, able to smoothly con), or soft (the soft sell)): specifically one who predicts the future based upon personal, political, spiritual, mental, or religious beliefs rather than scientific facts.

Making up scientific facts or playing “tricks” with them to fit your theory disqualifies one from being a scientist as one is “soothsaying” and very likely committing fraud especially when claims are made that people act upon or when money is involved.

As we are learning from Climategate, clearly the AGW alarmist crowd would rather fudge the data than let the chips fall where they may. Phil Jones, Michael Mann et. al. have a lot to learn from those who accurately predict the weather and climate!

What is their [Phil Jones Climate Research Unit’s] success rate [at predicting the climate using their hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming Climate Change (AGW)]?” – Corbyn

Let’s see. Here below is their infamous hockey stick graph and as the graph below it shows the actual data their success rate is, oh dear worse than zero since they faked the data… as proven with the Climategate revelations.

Fälschung (German) – forgery, forging, faking, counterfeiting, counterfeit, phoney, phony, falsification, fake.

It seems clear that the CRU forecasts of extreme climate warming of ten years ago have been falsified (i.e. they failed) due to the FACT that the last decade has seen a decline in temperatures. When predicting weather or climate it’s not just your “hypothesis” that is important it’s the actual predictions that you make that succeed or fail to predict the future. You’ve got it wrong Phil Jones, Michael Mann et. al. as anyone can see by looking at the temperatures, and you admit it privately in the Climategate emails, have the guts to be men and publicly admit that your AGW predictions have failed!

The purple line is the rising CO2 levels and as you can see from the blue temperature graph the last decade has declined and not followed the rise in CO2. Funny that. Oh wait, that's direct evidence that the AGW hypothesis failed to predict the last decade and thus falsifies the hypothesis. Oops, darn Nature not cooperating with the hypothesis.

Well it’s the evidence shows it’s conclusive, Phil Jones, Michael Mann et. al. are soothsayers as their Hockey Stick AGW forecasts failed to predict accurately the last ten years.

It’s conclusive Piers Corbyn is on to something significant using the Solar Weather Technique to with high accuracy predict the future weather and climate. Not a soothsayer but a true scientist working his craft.

Let’s explore the Solar Weather Technique of Weather and Climate Forecasting that seems to achieve remarkable results.

“Early Weather Action (Solar Weather Technique) skill was independently verified in a peer-reviewed paper by Dr Dennis Wheeler, University of Sunderland, in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Vol 63 (2001) p29-34.”

A verification of UK gale forecasts by the ‘solar weather technique’: October 1995–September 1997
In recent years the ‘solar weather’ technique of weather forecasting which takes into account of the influence of the sun has received much attention. No attempt has hitherto been made to determine the success, or otherwise, of elements of these forecasts, which include solar predictors and are prepared 6–11 months in advance of the events they predict. This paper conducts an evaluation of these forecasts but confines attention to the prediction of gales. Skill levels are assessed over different seasons. The results, whilst differing greatly between the seasons, reveal a degree of success that cannot readily be accounted for by chance and suggest that this system of forecasting continues to be assessed over a longer time period to further investigate these findings.

Further detailed successful results are found on the linked page above.

[Piers] Corbyn’s predictions are based on what is called “The Solar Weather Technique.”[8] The technique “combines statistical analysis of over a century of historical weather patterns with clues derived from solar observations.”[1] He considers past weather patterns and solar observations and sun-earth magnetic connectivity. Conventional meteorology claims that such influences cause minimal impact on the Earth’s atmosphere[9].

The Solar Weather Technique explained

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Climate Science, Climategate, Complex Systems, Debunking Bad Environmentalism, Hard Science, Hard Science Required, History, Humbled by Nature, Ignorance to Knowledge, It's weather AND climate!, Proofs, Proofs Needed, Rational Thinking, Reality Based Environmentalism, Science Education, Science over Propaganada, Video | 2 Comments »

Growing calls for Climategate alledged scientists to resign

Posted by pwl on November 29, 2009

Posted in Climate Science, Climategate, Debunking Bad Environmentalism, Ethics in Science, Evil Walks the Earth and Carries a Big Stick, Exercise for the Reader (that's you), Get some perspective people, Hard Science Required, Holding those who run the world responsible for their crimes against humanity, Reality Based Environmentalism, Science over Propaganada, Video, WOW!!!, Yikes! | Leave a Comment »

%d bloggers like this: