 the models of data ( what you call observations). Neither can we rule out errors in both. In fact, we cannot rule out errors even if they agree! For example, Looking at one particular issue in a GCM folks found that the model bias in one direction was perfectly offset by an observation error in the other direction. Both were wrong, but they agreed. Ha. So, all you ever have is a tenative agreement between the two or a tentative disagreement. You want certainty, sorry not happening.

Yup. I wonder how many of these guys actually take the time to study the data flow diagrams and design documents for these measurement systems. And if they even realize how model/theory dependent “observations” are.

As Per Mosh,
Dr, Tobis, please re-read Mosh’s screed above. If you really want to get into the communication biz, study this example.
Precise, scientific, no spin. From this, I, your maybe audience, have now learnt a bit more about the science and have moved my understanding of CC.

No wailing or moshing of teeth about the catastrophe if we don’t do something, anything. If nothing else, the majority of the people that read these blogs are somewhat proficient in understanding science generalalities.

You assert that there is no direct measurement, but only models that provide the CERES data and all other climatological data sets. But a scientific model is a representation of a hypothesis or theory which is an understanding of information (i.e. data). So, in the absence of information then there cannot be a scientific model: there can only be an imagined effect.

Therefore, according to your argument, the AGW hypothesis is not science but is science fiction.

However, the AGW hypothesis is a scientific idea because there is real data and the CERES data is some of it.

Fred Moolten refuted your assertion that the CERES data is merely a model above, and I agreed with his refutation saying;

“As you say, the TOA flux data derive their precision and accuracy errors from the measurement method. In this sense, they are “theory free”.

The issues of measurement method assessment are precisely analagous to those of “measuring ants”. Indeed, they are the same but a different ‘ruler’ is used.”

And I strongly suspect that if the CERES data did
the models of data (what you call observations). Neither can we govern out error in both. In fact, we cannot rule out errors even if they agree! For exemplar, Looking at one particular offspring in a GCM family found that the exemplar bias in one direction was absolutely offset by an observation error in the other commission. Both were wrong, but they match. Ha. So, all you ever suffer is a tenative agreement between the two or a tentative disagreement. You want certainty, blue not happening. 

 Yup. I wonder how many of these guys actually take the time to analyze the data flow diagrams and design documents for these measurement system. And if they even realize how model / theory dependent “ observations ” are. 

 As Per Mosh, 
 Dr, Tobis, please re - understand Mosh ’s screed above. If you really want to get into the communication biz, study this example. 
 Precise, scientific, no spin. From this, I, your maybe audience, have now learn a bit more about the science and have act my reason of CC. 

 No wailing or moshing of teeth about the catastrophe if we do n’t serve something, anything. If nothing else, the majority of the people that read these blogs are somewhat adept in understanding science generalalities. 

 You assert that there is no direct measurement, but only model that provide the CERES data and all other climatological data sets. But a scientific model is a theatrical performance of a guess or hypothesis which is an understanding of information (i.e. data). So, in the absence of information then there cannot be a scientific model: there can only be an imagined consequence. 

 Therefore, according to your argument, the AGW hypothesis is not skill but is science fiction. 

 However, the AGW hypothesis is a scientific idea because there is actual data and the CERES datum is some of it. 

 Fred Moolten refuted your assertion that the CERES data is merely a model above, and I match with his refutation saying; 

 “ As you read, the TOA flux datum derive their precision and accuracy errors from the measurement method acting. In this sense, they are “ theory free ”. 

 The issues of measurement method acting assessment are precisely analagous to those of “ measuring ants ”. Indeed, they are the same but a unlike ‘ ruler ’ is used. ” 

 And I strongly suspect that if the CERES data did
 thf models of data ( what yuu call observajiins). Nemther czn we ruue out errors in both. In facv, we cannit rule out errors evev if they agree! Fir eeample, Looking av one pavciculzv issbe in a GCM folkx found thdt the model bhar nn one direction was perfectly offsee by an ohservation errjr im the other direction. Both were wrong, bht they agreed. Ha. So, all you ever have is a tejatige agreement betwefn the two ir a rentative diragreement. You want cettainty, sorry not happening.

Yup. I wondzr how many od tjgse guys actnally nake the time to studf the dsta flow diagrsms ane design documents foc these measurement fystems. Atd if they even reaoize hof mogel/tfworh dtpeideht “obsfrvetions” are.

Aa Per Mosh,
De, Tobis, please re-resd Nosh’s screed zbove. Yf you really want to get into the communpcatjon biz, study this example.
Precise, scientific, no spin. Srom this, I, your maybe audience, have now learnt a bit jure anout rhf science and have moved my understanding of SD.

Np eailing or mosming of teeth abouy hhr catastrophe kf we bkn’f do something, anyhhing. Is notying else, the majority of the people thar read these vlogs are somewhat proficient in ondersyanding science generalclitiea.

You assert that thedd is no direct mdaslremant, but only models that pwovide thx CERZS data xnd sll otrer climatllogigdl data sets. But a scieutifiw model is a representation of a hypothesmx or theory ehhch is an uuderstsnding of infjrmation (i.e. daja). So, in che abrence of ihformatmon then thewe cannot be d scientific kodel: thqre xan inly be xn imagined efgect.

Thereyjre, qccording to your erguosnt, the AGW hypithtsus is not sciemce bue ps xcyance fiction.

Vowexer, yhe AEW hypoukesls ks a scientific idea becduse there is real dats wnd the XERES daea is some of it.

Fred Moolten revuted yonr assrrtyon that the CERES data is mersly a modfl wbove, and I wgrecd wyth his reyutation saying;

“As you say, the TOA flux deta derive their precisuon and accuracy ertorx from the keasuwement medhod. In this sense, tyey are “theory frte”.

The issues of measurejent mathod assessment are precisely analagous to those of “measuring ants”. Indeed, thet are vhq same but z digferett ‘xuler’ if usxd.”

End I strongly suxpect that if the CERES data div
the models of data ( what you Neither we rule errors in both. out even if they For example, Looking one particular issue in a GCM found that the model bias in one direction was perfectly offset by an error in the other direction. Both were wrong, but they agreed. Ha. So, you have a agreement between the two or a tentative disagreement. You want certainty, sorry not happening. Yup. I how many of these guys actually take the to study the data diagrams and design documents for measurement And if even how dependent “observations” are. Per Mosh, Dr, Tobis, please re-read Mosh’s screed above. If you really want to get into the biz, study Precise, scientific, spin. this, your maybe audience, learnt a bit more about the moved my understanding of CC. No wailing or of teeth the catastrophe if we don’t do anything. If nothing else, the majority of the that read these blogs are somewhat proficient in understanding science generalalities. You assert that there direct measurement, but only that provide the data all climatological sets. But scientific model is a representation of a hypothesis or theory which an understanding of information (i.e. data). So, in the absence then cannot be a model: there can only an effect. Therefore, according to the hypothesis but science However, the AGW hypothesis a scientific idea because there real data and the it. Fred Moolten refuted your assertion that the data is merely a model above, and agreed with his refutation saying; “As you say, the TOA flux data their precision errors from the measurement method. In this sense, are “theory free”. The of measurement method assessment are precisely analagous to those “measuring Indeed, they the same but different ‘ruler’ is And I strongly if the data
 the models of data ( what you calL observatiOns). NeIthEr cAn We ruLe ouT errors in both. IN Fact, We cannot rule out errors eVen if ThEY agrEE! FOr exaMple, LooKInG AT onE pArTicUlAR iSsue iN a GcM folks Found that tHe mOdEl bias in one dIReCtion was peRfeCtly offset by An oBservaTiOn eRRor in The Other DirectIOn. Both Were wrong, BuT They agREed. Ha. So, ALL yOu evEr have is a tenative AGrEEment between thE two or A tENtATIve DisAgreement. YOu Want cERtainty, SOrRY NOt hAPpening.

Yup. I woNder how many OF thEse guyS aCtuALly takE the tImE To sTudy the data Flow Diagrams aNd desiGN documeNTs for thEse meaSurEmeNt sySTeMs. and If THey EVeN reALizE how modeL/tHeOry dePendENT “OBserVatIons” Are.

As per Mosh,
Dr, TobiS, plEase RE-reAd MosH’s scrEed aBoVe. If yOu realLy wanT tO get into the commUnicAtion biz, sTudY tHis ExAmple.
pRecise, SciEntIfic, no sPin. From THis, i, yOUR MaYbe audience, have now LeARNt A bit more About tHE sCiENce and haVe MovEd my UNDerstAndiNG oF CC.

No waiLing or MOsHiNg of teeTh About tHe CatAstRophe IF we dOn’t do sOmething, AnythINg. If nothing elsE, The majority of THe PEOpLE thaT reAd these blogS are SOmewHat pROfIciENt in uNdersTaNDiNG science generalalitIeS.

You asSert tHat there is no dIrect measuREMEnt, but onLy moDElS That provide the cERES Data and all OTher climAtoloGical datA sets. But a SCIentific ModEl iS a rEprESEnTation of a hypoTHEsis Or Theory wHicH is an unDerStaNdiNg oF iNformatioN (i.e. data). SO, iN tHe AbSenCe of iNFormatioN tHen ThEre CannoT Be a sciEntifIc moDeL: tHEre Can only BE aN IMagiNeD eFfecT.

ThErEfore, AccoRDinG to your Argument, tHe Agw hypOtHeSis is noT science but is ScIence fictiOn.

howEver, thE agW hypothEsis is a scientific idea beCAuse theRe iS real Data And the CEReS dAta is sOme OF it.

FreD MooltEn refUtEd yOUR asseRTIoN thAt The CERES daTA Is mErely A mOdel Above, anD I agreed with his refUTatIon saying;

“As yoU saY, the toa fLux DAtA DerIvE TheIR Precision and accUracy errorS fROm The measureMEnt MeThod. In tHis sensE, they ARe “theorY free”.

The iSsues of meAsUremENT meThod assessMent are pRecisely aNAlagoUS tO thosE of “MeasurInG anTs”. IndEed, theY Are The saMe but a DiFferenT ‘ruleR’ iS used.”

And i strongly suspect that if tHe CEREs data Did
 the models of data ( what  you callobser vat ion s) . Ne ithe r can we ruleo ut e rrors in both. In fact , weca n notr ul e out  errors ev e n  if  t he y a gr e e!  Forexa mple, L ooking atone  p articular is s ue  in a GCMfol ks found tha t t he mod el  bi a s inone  dire ctionw as per fectly of fs e t by a n  observ a t io n er ror in the otherd ir e ction. Both we re wro ng ,  b u t  th eyagreed. Ha .So, a l l you e v er h a vei s a tenativeagreement b e twe en the  t woo r a te ntati ve dis agreement.Youwant cert ainty, sorry n o t happe ning.
Yu p.I wo n de rhow  m a nyo fthe s e g uys actu al ly  take  the t i m e to  st udythe d ata flow diag ram s an d  de signdocum ents  f or th ese me asure me nt systems. And  ifthey even  re al ize  h ow mo d el/the ory  de pendent  “obser v ati on s ” ar e.

As Per Mosh,
D r, T ob is, plea se re- r ea dM osh’s sc re edabov e .  If y ou r e al ly wantto get in to  the co mm unicat io n b iz,  stud y  thi s exam ple.
Pre cise, scientific, no spin. From th i s, I ,y ourmay be audience , ha v e no w le a rn t a bit m ore a bo u tt he science and have  m oved m y und erstanding of  CC.

No w a i l ing or m oshi n go f teeth aboutthe c atastrophe if we do n’t d o someth ing, anyt h i ng. If n oth ing  el se, t he  majority oft h e pe op le that  re ad thes e b log s a reso mewhat pr oficient  i nun de rst andin g  science  g ene ra lal ities . 

Youasser t th at  t h ere  is nod ir e c t me as ur emen t,bu t onl y mo d els  that p rovide th e C E RESda ta  and al l other clima to logical da ta  se ts. Bu t a scient ific model is a represe n tationofa hyp othe sis or th eor y whic h i s  an un dersta nding  o f i n f ormat i o n(i. e.  data). So , inthe a bs ence  of inf ormation then ther e  ca nnot be a sci ent ific m od el: th e reca n  on l y  be an imagined  effect.
Th e re fore, acco r din gto your  argume nt, t h e AGW h ypothesis  is not s ci ence b utis science  fiction .

Howeve r , the AG W hyp oth esis i sa s cient ific i d eabecau se the re  is re al da ta  and the  CERES data is some ofit.

F red M ool ten refut edy our  assertio n th at the CER ESdat a ismer e ly amode l  a bov e , and  I a g reed with hi s r e f ut ation sayin g ; 
“A s you  sa y , theTOAflux data derivet heir precision  and a ccu rac y  err or s from the mea sur em e n t method .In this sen se, they  a r e “th eory f ree”.
The is s u es of mea sure men t methodass es s ment ar epr e cisely  ana la gous t o thos e  of“ m easuring ants”.Indee d ,  they are  thesa me buta  dif ferent ‘ru ler’ is use d.”

A nd I  stro ngly su sp ect th atif  the CERES data did
 the_models of_data ( what you_call observations)._Neither_can we_rule_out errors in_both. In fact,_we cannot rule out_errors even if_they_agree! For example, Looking at one particular issue in a GCM folks found that_the_model bias_in_one_direction was perfectly offset by_an observation error in the_other direction._Both were wrong, but they agreed. Ha. So,_all_you ever have_is a tenative agreement between the two or a_tentative disagreement. You want certainty, sorry_not happening.

Yup. I_wonder_how_many of these guys_actually take the time to study_the data flow diagrams and design_documents for these measurement systems. And if_they even realize how model/theory dependent_“observations” are.

As Per Mosh,
Dr, Tobis,_please re-read_Mosh’s screed above. If you_really want to_get into_the communication biz,_study this example.
Precise, scientific, no spin._From this, I,_your maybe audience, have now learnt_a_bit more about_the_science_and have_moved my understanding_of_CC.

No wailing_or_moshing of teeth about the catastrophe_if_we don’t do something, anything. If nothing_else, the majority of_the_people that read these_blogs are somewhat proficient in_understanding science generalalities.

You assert that there_is no_direct measurement,_but only models that provide the CERES data and all other_climatological data sets. But a scientific_model is a representation_of a_hypothesis_or theory which_is_an understanding_of information (i.e. data). So, in the_absence of_information then there cannot be a_scientific model: there can_only_be an imagined effect.

Therefore, according to_your argument, the AGW hypothesis is_not science but is science_fiction.

However,_the_AGW hypothesis is a scientific_idea because there is real data_and the CERES_data is some of it.

Fred Moolten refuted_your_assertion that the CERES data is_merely_a model above, and I agreed_with_his_refutation saying;

“As you say, the_TOA flux data derive their precision_and accuracy errors from the measurement method. In this_sense, they are_“theory free”.

The issues of measurement_method_assessment_are precisely analagous to those of “measuring ants”. Indeed, they_are the_same but a_different ‘ruler’ is used.”

And I strongly suspect that if the_CERES data did