97% Scientists agree AGAIN

[gslack]

You DIDN'T EVEN READ THE PAPER in the link - so you'll have to forgive me if I dismiss your opinion on it (that you actually just copied from someone else that you fail to source) as completely worthless.

That's a pretty bold claim considering he cited the link. I think you didn't read the paper..

from the link he provided in the papers abstract...

Here we show one danger of the use of such criteria in the construction of these simulations, namely the apparent emergence of a selection bias between generations of these simulations. Earlier generation ensembles of model simulations are shown to possess sufficient diversity to capture recent observed shifts in both the mean surface air temperature as well as the frequency of extreme monthly mean temperature events due to climate warming. However, current generation ensembles of model simulations are statistically inconsistent with these observed shifts, despite a marked reduction in the spread among ensemble members that by itself suggests convergence towards some common solution. This convergence indicates the possibility of a selection bias based upon warming rate.

Seems it agrees with his brief completely. Next time try reading socko...

Its not "his brief" - he cut and pasted his opinion from Anthony Watts and didn't even source him. And he has not read the paper.

Not much good at following your own argument are you...

Socko by "his brief" I didn't intend to denote an author.. And his link was to the actual paper itself,hence my saying;"That's a pretty bold claim considering he cited the link."

But you want to cry because he didn't link to the Watts story,be my guest, it won't change a thing though. He cited the source paper and your denial of this fact is telling.

 

[SSDD]

yuk......yuk......yuk.........
There are waaaaaaaaay too many variables that are conveniently ignored.

How many too many?

Even one important variable is to many. The fact that the earth rotates and has a day period and a night period which is not modeled might be considered an important factor by some....those interested in modelling reality anyway. The fact that the earth is a sphere rather than a flat disk is another factor that many would consider important to include in a model. The fact that an equal amount of incoming solar energy is not reaching every point on the globe at the same time all the time is another important factor that many would consider important...Natural variation is another factor not produced in models that many would consider important. Clouds and water vapor are very important and most certainly not accurately modeld, if at all......climate models don't include ocean currents and temperature cycles....climate models don't include the sun in any realistic manner....climate models don't include geothermal activity in any way that resembles reality.....climate models don't include solar magnetic effects even though they are known to have a considerable influence on the atmosphere....climate models don't include the uncertainty in estimates of radiative forcing an very often represent them with the wrong sign......climate models don't include plants and their effects on the amosphere...climate models don't include the effects that various types of clouds produce...climate models don't include soot....climate models don't include precipiation....climate models don't include wildfires and other sorts of natural and manmade surface disturbances that effect the atmosphere...

And the list could go on and on and on. In short, it would be much easier to make a list of what climate models do include, than what they don't...which is why they are at this time, abject failures.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

And his link was to the actual paper itself,

That's my point, dildo head. He quotes Anthony Watt's OPINION and then links the paper as if that opinion came from the paper.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Even one important variable is to many. The fact that the earth rotates ...

Show how rotation is important.

Also give me an example computer model that doesn't include rotational terms.

 

[NoNukes]

And yet observation has deviated from the models. There hasn't been any "warming" in over ten years.

FAIL.

There have been erratic weather patterns though. Global warming is not just about a rise in temperatures.

 

[NoNukes]

And yet, scientists are baffled why the warming has paused for over a decade now. Can you say "conflict, junk science"? Probably not.

Seriously, you're a fucking high caliber moron, fella. I'm not sure you should even be in the discussion.

But, you are out of your fucking mind and you are still participating.

 

[kwc57]

Things that make you go hmmmmmm.

BBC News - Climate slowdown means extreme rates of warming 'not as likely'

 

[westwall]

And yet observation has deviated from the models. There hasn't been any "warming" in over ten years.

FAIL.

There have been erratic weather patterns though. Global warming is not just about a rise in temperatures.

There have ALLLLLLLWAYS been erratic weather patterns. What is happening now is actually less erratic than what has occurred in the past when CO2 levels were "safe". If you want to see some erratic weather look up the storms of the 1600's. THOSE were brutal.
Especially the Great Drowning of Men. Look it up why don't you....0

 

[westwall]

And yet, scientists are baffled why the warming has paused for over a decade now. Can you say "conflict, junk science"? Probably not.

Seriously, you're a fucking high caliber moron, fella. I'm not sure you should even be in the discussion.

But, you are out of your fucking mind and you are still participating.

His is an INFORMED OPINION. A huge difference from the revisionists here on the forum.

 

[gslack]

And his link was to the actual paper itself,

That's my point, dildo head. He quotes Anthony Watt's OPINION and then links the paper as if that opinion came from the paper.

Then your point is retarded socko... He cited the source paper, your argument now is what exactly? That because he forgot a link to watts, the source paper is wrong?

It's a sorry excuse socko, just like you.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

There have ALLLLLLLWAYS been erratic weather patterns.

Will the weather always be more erratic than average?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

And his link was to the actual paper itself,

That's my point, dildo head. He quotes Anthony Watt's OPINION and then links the paper as if that opinion came from the paper.

Then your point is retarded socko... He cited the source paper, your argument now is what exactly? That because he forgot a link to watts, the source paper is wrong?

It's a sorry excuse socko, just like you.

My argument is the source he gave for the material he quoted isn't actually the source for the material quoted. Are you stupid?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.”

Why do you think the person who you copied your opinion from without sourcing - Anthony Watts - left out the entire quote there? Maybe its because he knows you're a moron and wouldn't actually look it up for yourself? Well here it is:

"Earlier generation ensembles of model simulations are shown to possess sufficient diversity to capture recent observed shifts in both the mean surface air temperature as well as the frequency of extreme monthly mean temperature events due to climate warming"



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

 

[edthecynic]

BULLSHIT from you... Your link said the following right after your line above..

Now what was that nonsense all about? It set no records but somehow set records anyway? Ninth warmest year in modern history?

More spin media at work.. I'll tell ya what, you find how it is 2012 was the warmest ever when it was the ninth warmest ever..

A perfect example of the absolute stupidity it takes to be a denier. You have to be too stupid to know the difference between a YEAR and a DECADE.

Dumbass,

What do you think when you read this phrase...

"New data from scientists at NASA and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) now indicate that 2012 capped the hottest decade on record for global temperatures."

If they aren't claiming that 2012 was the hottest in the decade why the BS about "capped the hottest decade"????

Look dude it was your link, they tried to imply something the data didn't support. AND YOU posted it... So, if it is my mistake better tell them to stop implying it with such loose and misrepresenting phrases like "2012 capped the the hottest decade on record" . When I read capped, liked most people I assume they mean topped it off and should therefore be more or at least some kind of evidence to support the claim.. Ninth warmest doesn't even cut it dude..

If you don't like misunderstandings, don't post misleading crap..

Again we see the absolute STUPIDITY required to be a denier. Even after being shown that the DECADE was the hottest and not the year 2012, this inserts HIS word "in" to change what was stated and then plays too dumb to know what HE did.

 

[RollingThunder]

A perfect example of the absolute stupidity it takes to be a denier. You have to be too stupid to know the difference between a YEAR and a DECADE.

Dumbass,

What do you think when you read this phrase...

"New data from scientists at NASA and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) now indicate that 2012 capped the hottest decade on record for global temperatures."

If they aren't claiming that 2012 was the hottest in the decade why the BS about "capped the hottest decade"????

Look dude it was your link, they tried to imply something the data didn't support. AND YOU posted it... So, if it is my mistake better tell them to stop implying it with such loose and misrepresenting phrases like "2012 capped the the hottest decade on record" . When I read capped, liked most people I assume they mean topped it off and should therefore be more or at least some kind of evidence to support the claim.. Ninth warmest doesn't even cut it dude..

If you don't like misunderstandings, don't post misleading crap..

Again we see the absolute STUPIDITY required to be a denier. Even after being shown that the DECADE was the hottest and not the year 2012, this inserts HIS word "in" to change what was stated and then plays too dumb to know what HE did.

If you choose to debate total trolls like the slackjawedidiot, this kind of nonsense is all you should expect. His job is to derail threads with pointless idiocy and meaningless off-topic quibbles. You'll notice that he never backs up his moronic denier cult assertions with any actual evidence. He is here to waste your time and post misinformation and lies. That's all he ever does. I sometimes respond to one of his posts in order to set the record straight on one of his lies but mostly to humorously mock his insane denial of reality. He can be very hilarious at times. But, bottom line, he is a troll with nothing intelligent or truthful to add to any debate. Most of his deranged posts are very ignorable and probably should be.

 

[SSDD]

Even one important variable is to many. The fact that the earth rotates ...

Show how rotation is important.

Is that a serious question? If so, then you really don't have a clue do you? Showing rotation is important because the earth consists of two thermodynamically very different hemispheres at any given time...one being constantly heated to varying degrees by incoming solar radiation and the other receiving no radiation at all and constantly cooling....the current crop of models represent an earth that receives a constant amount of solar energy across the entire surface 24 hours a day.

Also give me an example computer model that doesn't include rotational terms.

None of the current crop of models represent the earth as a rotating sphere.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Even one important variable is to many. The fact that the earth rotates ...

Show how rotation is important.

Is that a serious question? If so, then you really don't have a clue do you? Showing rotation is important because the earth consists of two thermodynamically very different hemispheres at any given time...one being constantly heated to varying degrees by incoming solar radiation and the other receiving no radiation at all and constantly cooling....

So that wouldn't be true if the Earth didn't rotate on its axes? Seems to me if it didn't rotate - it would still be half lit by Sun and half unlit by Sun, right? Maybe you should think about rotation some more.

Also give me an example computer model that doesn't include rotational terms.

None of the current crop of models represent the earth as a rotating sphere.

This one does:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1983/1983_Hansen_etal.pdf
The top equation in Table one clearly has rotational terms. It has the Coriolis force explicitly in the equation and the centrifugal force included in the effective gravity term. Of course, you wouldn't have any clue either which way, would you? And on page 619 top left paragraph "Solar Radiation" you see them described how the zenith angle is used to compute the radiation from the sun.


How did you miss this model? Its the NASA model, pretty well known. What models did you research before concluding that all of the lacked the features you claim they lack? 5? 2? 1? 0?

 

[gslack]

A perfect example of the absolute stupidity it takes to be a denier. You have to be too stupid to know the difference between a YEAR and a DECADE.

Dumbass,

What do you think when you read this phrase...

"New data from scientists at NASA and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) now indicate that 2012 capped the hottest decade on record for global temperatures."

If they aren't claiming that 2012 was the hottest in the decade why the BS about "capped the hottest decade"????

Look dude it was your link, they tried to imply something the data didn't support. AND YOU posted it... So, if it is my mistake better tell them to stop implying it with such loose and misrepresenting phrases like "2012 capped the the hottest decade on record" . When I read capped, liked most people I assume they mean topped it off and should therefore be more or at least some kind of evidence to support the claim.. Ninth warmest doesn't even cut it dude..

If you don't like misunderstandings, don't post misleading crap..

Again we see the absolute STUPIDITY required to be a denier. Even after being shown that the DECADE was the hottest and not the year 2012, this inserts HIS word "in" to change what was stated and then plays too dumb to know what HE did.

They weren't my words asshole, they were the words in the cut and paste article you used.. Want to argue it fine, but at least be honest about the the words..The tried togive a false impression, and you did too..

 

[gslack]

Show how rotation is important.

Is that a serious question? If so, then you really don't have a clue do you? Showing rotation is important because the earth consists of two thermodynamically very different hemispheres at any given time...one being constantly heated to varying degrees by incoming solar radiation and the other receiving no radiation at all and constantly cooling....

So that wouldn't be true if the Earth didn't rotate on its axes? Seems to me if it didn't rotate - it would still be half lit by Sun and half unlit by Sun, right? Maybe you should think about rotation some more.

Also give me an example computer model that doesn't include rotational terms.

None of the current crop of models represent the earth as a rotating sphere.

This one does:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1983/1983_Hansen_etal.pdf
The top equation in Table one clearly has rotational terms. It has the Coriolis force explicitly in the equation and the centrifugal force included in the effective gravity term. Of course, you wouldn't have any clue either which way, would you? And on page 619 top left paragraph "Solar Radiation" you see them described how the zenith angle is used to compute the radiation from the sun.


How did you miss this model? Its the NASA model, pretty well known. What models did you research before concluding that all of the lacked the features you claim they lack? 5? 2? 1? 0?

The energy budget model (Trenbeth) used in most studies, does represent the earth as a flat disc with 24/7 daylight. This is known and not denied. The claim is it simplifies the computations which is needed because to date all other attempts to accurately show it as it truly is falls flat. Either the models are too inaccurate, the computer power to compute them too great, or the analysis fails somewhere..

Just as your linked paper published in 1983 tried to do but evidently failed because they don't actually use that model, they use Trenberth..

 

[gslack]

Dumbass,

What do you think when you read this phrase...

"New data from scientists at NASA and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) now indicate that 2012 capped the hottest decade on record for global temperatures."

If they aren't claiming that 2012 was the hottest in the decade why the BS about "capped the hottest decade"????

Look dude it was your link, they tried to imply something the data didn't support. AND YOU posted it... So, if it is my mistake better tell them to stop implying it with such loose and misrepresenting phrases like "2012 capped the the hottest decade on record" . When I read capped, liked most people I assume they mean topped it off and should therefore be more or at least some kind of evidence to support the claim.. Ninth warmest doesn't even cut it dude..

If you don't like misunderstandings, don't post misleading crap..

Again we see the absolute STUPIDITY required to be a denier. Even after being shown that the DECADE was the hottest and not the year 2012, this inserts HIS word "in" to change what was stated and then plays too dumb to know what HE did.

If you choose to debate total trolls like the slackjawedidiot, this kind of nonsense is all you should expect. His job is to derail threads with pointless idiocy and meaningless off-topic quibbles. You'll notice that he never backs up his moronic denier cult assertions with any actual evidence. He is here to waste your time and post misinformation and lies. That's all he ever does. I sometimes respond to one of his posts in order to set the record straight on one of his lies but mostly to humorously mock his insane denial of reality. He can be very hilarious at times. But, bottom line, he is a troll with nothing intelligent or truthful to add to any debate. Most of his deranged posts are very ignorable and probably should be.

Translation: BOO HOO! He hurt my feelings!