97% Scientists agree AGAIN

[RKMBrown]

I write software to model astrophysical systems on high performance computers.

Sorry, you'll have to find the code yourself. I'm not sharing.

You don't really know how science works, do you?

The code filters any input data that opposes the desired result for a hockey stick. You could throw any random data at it and out comes a pretty hockey stick.

How do we know this? Because you say so?

And we know global warming is caused by CO2 because you say so?

 

[SSDD]

What do they need to do to make the model more accurate?

Well, they could start by modelling something that at least resembles the earth. The present crop of models represent the earth as a flat disk that doesn't rotate, has no day or night, is the same temperature across its entire surface, receives the same amount of energy from the sun across its entire surface, which, by the way is 1/4 of the actual amount 24 hours a day and no clouds or evaporation.

How can anyone expect models to accurately represent reality when they are modelling something that is nothing at all like reality.

There is one model that represents the earth as a 3D, rotating sphere, that has a day side and a night side with clouds and evaporation and varying amounts of incoming energy depending on the time of day and the lattitude. That model, even though it accurately predicts the temperature of the earth can't get any notice in the climate change community because it doesn't require a greenhouse effect to accurately model the atmosphere.

Take a look sometime.

http://principia-scientific.org/publications/The_Model_Atmosphere.pdf

 

[SSDD]

1. Faster super computers
2. more knowledge of the climate system
3. better surface and atmospheric data

Some idea's to improve the models. Finding out the question of 1. Aerosols and 2. the way the oceans take up heat is a serious improvement of understanding of our climate.

All the computing power in the world, coupled with all the data in the world is not going to make an accurate model till they get the physics right. At present, the physics are simply wrong. That, and they need to model something that resembles the earth rather than a flat disk bathed in perpetual twilight.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I have figured it out. the Right does not understand the concept of global warming because they do not teach high tech instrument reading and calibration of thermometers at Liberty College and Bob Jones University.

They don't have high tech instruments in the Bible, so we don't need them.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Sorry, you'll have to find the code yourself. I'm not sharing.

You don't really know how science works, do you?

The code filters any input data that opposes the desired result for a hockey stick. You could throw any random data at it and out comes a pretty hockey stick.

How do we know this? Because you say so?

And we know global warming is caused by CO2 because you say so?

Are you going to answer?

 

[SSDD]

I write software to model astrophysical systems on high performance computers.

So tell me how one can reasonably expect a model to produce output that resembles reality when the program isn't modelling anything even close to reality.

 

[SSDD]

I have figured it out. the Right does not understand the concept of global warming because they do not teach high tech instrument reading and calibration of thermometers at Liberty College and Bob Jones University.

They don't have high tech instruments in the Bible, so we don't need them.

Is that really the best you can do? How about showing me a mathematical model of the greenhouse effect that states exactly how much warming can be expected if atmospheric CO2 increases X amount.

One would think that after all this time a mathematical model of the greenhouse effect would exist, but it doesn't. If such a model were to exist, then the greenhouse effect would be falsifiable when it failed....ergo...no model.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

What do they need to do to make the model more accurate?

Well, they could start by modelling something that at least resembles the earth. The present crop of models represent the earth as a flat disk that doesn't rotate, has no day or night, is the same temperature across its entire surface, receives the same amount of energy from the sun across its entire surface, which, by the way is 1/4 of the actual amount 24 hours a day and no clouds or evaporation.

How can anyone expect models to accurately represent reality when they are modelling something that is nothing at all like reality.

You're talking about zero-dimensional and one-dimensional analytic models, not the fully 3d computer models I was referring to. You'd know that if you actually could think on your own instead of simply regurgitating stuff you remember from blogs. As the engineer of modelling software for astrophysical systems, I can assure you it is quite trivial to include things like centrifugal and Coriolis forces!

There is one model that represents the earth as a 3D, rotating sphere, that has a day side and a night side with clouds and evaporation and varying amounts of incoming energy depending on the time of day and the lattitude. That model, even though it accurately predicts the temperature of the earth can't get any notice in the climate change community because it doesn't require a greenhouse effect to accurately model the atmosphere.

Take a look sometime.

http://principia-scientific.org/publications/The_Model_Atmosphere.pdf

The pal-review non-doctorate written paper you refer doesn't actually criticize any of the fully three dimensional computer models.

Do you even know what you're talking about?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I have figured it out. the Right does not understand the concept of global warming because they do not teach high tech instrument reading and calibration of thermometers at Liberty College and Bob Jones University.

They don't have high tech instruments in the Bible, so we don't need them.

Is that really the best you can do? How about showing me a mathematical model of the greenhouse effect that states exactly how much warming can be expected if atmospheric CO2 increases X amount.

?!? You don't think the climate models take Co2 as an input and output temperature?

One would think that after all this time a mathematical model of the greenhouse effect would exist, but it doesn't.

Yes, it does. Here's one right here: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/18/Arrhenius.pdf

Do you know what a mathematical model is?

If such a model were to exist, then the greenhouse effect would be falsifiable when it failed....ergo...no model.

Now you're just stringing together words that you think sound good so you can look smart - but it isn't working. Its just babble now.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I write software to model astrophysical systems on high performance computers.

So tell me how one can reasonably expect a model to produce output that resembles reality when the program isn't modelling anything even close to reality.

Things that don't model reality don't model reality - excellent point! That one is not very obvious, glad you pointed it out! BTW, I just discovered that 1 = 1!

 

[SSDD]

The pal-review non-expert paper you refer doesn't actually criticize any of the fully three dimensional computer models.

Do you even know what you're talking about?

Which fully three dimensional computer models...who is running them...and how do the energy budgets they portray differ from the khiel/trenberth energy budget?

 

[hortysir]

So an overwhelming percentage of humans are in favor of keeping the grant-money-cash-cow alive.


ok

 

[SSDD]

Yes, it does. Here's one right here: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/18/Arrhenius.pdf

Quaint nineteenth century science...and you wonder why people don't take you seriously.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The pal-review non-expert paper you refer doesn't actually criticize any of the fully three dimensional computer models.

Do you even know what you're talking about?

Which fully three dimensional computer models...who is running them...

So that's a "no" then, isn't it?

This whole time we've been talking about models of the climate - and you weren't even aware that they were running three-dimensional models on supercomputers . Jeez. Here's a list:
Table of Participating CMIP Models

and how do the energy budgets they portray differ from the khiel/trenberth energy budget?

They evolve in time for one thing.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Yes, it does. Here's one right here: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/18/Arrhenius.pdf

Quaint nineteenth century science...and you wonder why people don't take you seriously.

You stated mathematical models of the greenhouse effect did not exist. I showed you the first one, disproving you. What more do you want?

 

[SSDD]

I write software to model astrophysical systems on high performance computers.

So tell me how one can reasonably expect a model to produce output that resembles reality when the program isn't modelling anything even close to reality.

Things that don't model reality don't model reality - excellent point! That one is not very obvious, glad you pointed it out! BTW, I just discovered that 1 = 1!

The fact remains that climate models are getting worse instead of better. Maybe because they are stuck in the 19th century.

A paper published today in Geophysical Research Letters finds that the latest climate models are performing even worse than the earlier generations of climate models in predicting

“…both the mean surface air temperature as well as the frequency of extreme monthly mean temperature events due to climate warming.”

The author hypothesizes the reasons for this are that attempts in the latest generation of models to reproduce observed changes in Arctic sea ice are causing “significant and widening discrepancy between the modeled and observed warming rates outside of the Arctic,” i.e. they have improved Arctic simulation at the expense of poorly simulating the rest of the globe. The paper adds to hundreds of other peer-reviewed papers demonstrating the abject failure of climate models.

Emerging selection bias in large-scale climate change simulations - Swanson - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

 

[SSDD]

Yes, it does. Here's one right here: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/18/Arrhenius.pdf

Quaint nineteenth century science...and you wonder why people don't take you seriously.

You stated mathematical models of the greenhouse effect did not exist. I showed you the first one, disproving you. What more do you want?

And you belive that is accurate? That is the model climate science is working with today?

 

[SSDD]

So that's a "no" then, isn't it?

Defensive when you are wrong much?

This whole time we've been talking about models of the climate - and you weren't even aware that they were running three-dimensional models on supercomputers . Jeez. Here's a list:
Table of Participating CMIP Models

Guess you didn't take any time to look at the documentation for your "list". They all look pretty flat earthish to me. Nothing like reality in any of them. That's the problem...they don't model reality and the physics are flawed so they must have a greenhouse effect to even approach anything like actual temperatures.

and how do the energy budgets they portray differ from the khiel/trenberth energy budget?

They evolve in time for one thing.[/QUOTE]

No answer huh? I didn't see any indication that they differ in the least from the khiel/trenberth budget complete with flat earth, no day and night and weak twilight 24 hours a day.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I understand that the Ronald Reagan Library is going to start sponsoring earth science grants to kids that come up with the best evidence supporting Reagan's thoeries on science and environmental issues, as outlined by these quotes:

Ronald Reagan Quotes - 6 Science Quotes - Dictionary of Science Quotations and Scientist Quotes

 

[Skull Pilot]

Would you like to not be here?

Ooohhh you're scaring me now. i might die if the earth is a little warmer.


Common sense.

Do you know the difference between science and common sense?

How many times has the earth warmed and cooled in its 45 billion year history?

How many?

The earth is still here and so are we.

I don't think any scientists are claiming climate change will cause the Earth to disintegrate.

No just biblical catastrophes and massive death.

Sorry but scare tactics like that do nothing to support your cause.

And again if the earth is a couple degrees warmer we'll all be just fine.

So go to bed now Chicken Little.