AGW and Model Failures- An Engineers Point of View....

[Billy_Bob]

Current modeling only includes POSITIVE FEEDBACKS. This is why they fail every time. There must be negative feedback for any oscillation to be stable. Since these idiots dont believe in negative feedbacks their models runaway...

That is complete and utter nonsense. Let's see some evidence supporting that claim Billy Bob.

Every model to date uses only positive feedbacks. Pick one you want to parse out!

 

[Old Rocks]

Links, you lying asshole.

https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2008.tail_implications.pdf

Received: 19 December 2006 / Published online: 4 June 2008
# The Author(s) 2008
Abstract The notion is pervasive in the climate science community and in the public at
large that the climate impacts of fossil fuel CO2 release will only persist for a few centuries.
This conclusion has no basis in theory or models of the atmosphere/ocean carbon cycle,
which we review here. The largest fraction of the CO2 recovery will take place on time
scales of centuries, as CO2 invades the ocean, but a significant fraction of the fossil fuel
CO2, ranging in published models in the literature from 20–60%, remains airborne for a
thousand years or longer. Ultimate recovery takes place on time scales of hundreds of
thousands of years, a geologic longevity typically associated in public perceptions with
nuclear waste. The glacial/interglacial climate cycles demonstrate that ice sheets and sea
level respond dramatically to millennial-timescale changes in climate forcing. There are
also potential positive feedbacks in the carbon cycle, including methane hydrates in the
ocean, and peat frozen in permafrost, that are most sensitive to the long tail of the fossil fuel
CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

[Old Rocks]

Current modeling only includes POSITIVE FEEDBACKS. This is why they fail every time. There must be negative feedback for any oscillation to be stable. Since these idiots dont believe in negative feedbacks their models runaway...

That is complete and utter nonsense. Let's see some evidence supporting that claim Billy Bob.

Every model to date uses only positive feedbacks. Pick one you want to parse out!

You made the accusation, prove it. Links, asshole!

 

[Billy_Bob]

Dumb fuck, the models predicted Arctic Ice might be gone briefly in the summer by 2100. By observation, it appears that this will happen by 2030. Possibly much sooner.

Can dumb fuck you produce evidence that this will happen? Been drinking the model kookaid a bit much lately haven't ya..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Links, you lying asshole.

https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2008.tail_implications.pdf

Received: 19 December 2006 / Published online: 4 June 2008
# The Author(s) 2008
Abstract The notion is pervasive in the climate science community and in the public at
large that the climate impacts of fossil fuel CO2 release will only persist for a few centuries.
This conclusion has no basis in theory or models of the atmosphere/ocean carbon cycle,
which we review here. The largest fraction of the CO2 recovery will take place on time
scales of centuries, as CO2 invades the ocean, but a significant fraction of the fossil fuel
CO2, ranging in published models in the literature from 20–60%, remains airborne for a
thousand years or longer. Ultimate recovery takes place on time scales of hundreds of
thousands of years, a geologic longevity typically associated in public perceptions with
nuclear waste. The glacial/interglacial climate cycles demonstrate that ice sheets and sea
level respond dramatically to millennial-timescale changes in climate forcing. There are
also potential positive feedbacks in the carbon cycle, including methane hydrates in the
ocean, and peat frozen in permafrost, that are most sensitive to the long tail of the fossil fuel
CO2 in the atmosphere.

LOL.... Archer 2008 and evil fossil fuels.. Its a god dam propaganda piece that has been factually debunked..

 

[Old Rocks]

Fig.1 Arctic sea ice volume anomaly from PIOMAS updated once a month. Daily Sea Ice volume anomalies for each day are computed relative to the 1979 to 2011 average for that day of the year. Tickmarks on time axis refer to 1st day of year. The trend for the period 1979- present is shown in blue. Shaded areas show one and two standard deviations from the trend. Error bars indicate the uncertainty of the monthly anomaly plotted once per year.




According to this graph too the Arctic won't become ice-free before 2025.

I'm saying this because that's how it looks right now, but it's always good to remember that the Arctic and the word 'likely' don't get along very well. I also can't stress enough that the consequences of Arctic sea ice loss do not start when the Arctic becomes ice-free for all practical purposes. These consequences are most probably already with us, and will get worse as Arctic sea ice loss progresses, regardless of the question whether the Arctic becomes ice-free this decade, the next or between 2030 and 2040. It's all a geological blink of an eye, and much sooner than anticipated just 5 years ago.

While we speculate about all this, here and on the Forum, we keep an eye on the PIOMAS figures to see what winter will bring.

PIOMAS October 2014 - Arctic Sea Ice

Here you go.

 

[Old Rocks]

Links, you lying asshole.

https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2008.tail_implications.pdf

Received: 19 December 2006 / Published online: 4 June 2008
# The Author(s) 2008
Abstract The notion is pervasive in the climate science community and in the public at
large that the climate impacts of fossil fuel CO2 release will only persist for a few centuries.
This conclusion has no basis in theory or models of the atmosphere/ocean carbon cycle,
which we review here. The largest fraction of the CO2 recovery will take place on time
scales of centuries, as CO2 invades the ocean, but a significant fraction of the fossil fuel
CO2, ranging in published models in the literature from 20–60%, remains airborne for a
thousand years or longer. Ultimate recovery takes place on time scales of hundreds of
thousands of years, a geologic longevity typically associated in public perceptions with
nuclear waste. The glacial/interglacial climate cycles demonstrate that ice sheets and sea
level respond dramatically to millennial-timescale changes in climate forcing. There are
also potential positive feedbacks in the carbon cycle, including methane hydrates in the
ocean, and peat frozen in permafrost, that are most sensitive to the long tail of the fossil fuel
CO2 in the atmosphere.

LOL.... Archer 2008 and evil fossil fuels.. Its a god dam propaganda piece that has be factually debunked..

Links, asshole, links.

 

[mamooth]

Billy, every single model begins with the massive negative feedback from the Stephan-Boltzman law. As temperature goes up, more heat radiates away from earth. That overwhelming negative feedback alone prevents any unstable runaway.

Your presupposition of your desired answer is also amusing. You assume the climate system must be "oscillating", with no evidence to back it up. That's another reason why you fail so badly. When you figure out variation is not oscillation, you'll have made some progress in understanding why the electric circuit analogy fails.

 

[rdean]

LOL. Another fruitloop non-scientist. No, I will not bother or waste my time reading anything out of WUWT.

Really. How can people who live for less than a hundred years say "Climate has been in real terms amazingly stable.". There have been mass extinctions because the climate was changed. In terms of geologic time, a million years is nothing. And with billions of humans affecting every part of the globe, why would they think the atmosphere would be completely unaffected?
And how can they claim to be the majority of scientists and mock scientists in the same paragraph?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Fig.1 Arctic sea ice volume anomaly from PIOMAS updated once a month. Daily Sea Ice volume anomalies for each day are computed relative to the 1979 to 2011 average for that day of the year. Tickmarks on time axis refer to 1st day of year. The trend for the period 1979- present is shown in blue. Shaded areas show one and two standard deviations from the trend. Error bars indicate the uncertainty of the monthly anomaly plotted once per year.




According to this graph too the Arctic won't become ice-free before 2025.

I'm saying this because that's how it looks right now, but it's always good to remember that the Arctic and the word 'likely' don't get along very well. I also can't stress enough that the consequences of Arctic sea ice loss do not start when the Arctic becomes ice-free for all practical purposes. These consequences are most probably already with us, and will get worse as Arctic sea ice loss progresses, regardless of the question whether the Arctic becomes ice-free this decade, the next or between 2030 and 2040. It's all a geological blink of an eye, and much sooner than anticipated just 5 years ago.

While we speculate about all this, here and on the Forum, we keep an eye on the PIOMAS figures to see what winter will bring.

PIOMAS October 2014 - Arctic Sea Ice

Here you go.

And Ice increase started in 2009-2010 while the ocean circulations were still warm. Those circulations are now cold, the undercutting of glaciers has stopped in the Antarctic and now in the Arctic just in the last three years.

Your predictive models FAILED to predict this as they have failed to predict anything... Evidence from the past indicates that we will see cooling now for about 30 to 50 some years and if the solar cycles of 3, 4, and 5 are empirical evidence of the change we are entering now, rapid cooling should begin in the next 5 years. The LIA has happened before and variations happen every 300 years.

Empirical evidence indicates your very wrong in your models predictions.

 

[Billy_Bob]

LOL. Another fruitloop non-scientist. No, I will not bother or waste my time reading anything out of WUWT.

Really. How can people who live for less than a hundred years say "Climate has been in real terms amazingly stable.". There have been mass extinctions because the climate was changed. In terms of geologic time, a million years is nothing. And with billions of humans affecting every part of the globe, why would they think the atmosphere would be completely unaffected?
And how can they claim to be the majority of scientists and mock scientists in the same paragraph?

Relatively speaking, the range is 12 degrees C in total. and yes mass extinctions have occurred because they were unable to adapt, something we as humans can do if were allowed.. If the alarmist/power hungry fools get their way we will be unable to adapt and that will kill millions.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. Another fruitloop non-scientist. No, I will not bother or waste my time reading anything out of WUWT.

Really. How can people who live for less than a hundred years say "Climate has been in real terms amazingly stable.". There have been mass extinctions because the climate was changed. In terms of geologic time, a million years is nothing. And with billions of humans affecting every part of the globe, why would they think the atmosphere would be completely unaffected?
And how can they claim to be the majority of scientists and mock scientists in the same paragraph?

Relatively speaking, the range is 12 degrees C in total. and yes mass extinctions have occurred because they were unable to adapt, something we as humans can do if were allowed.. If the alarmist/power hungry fools get their way we will be unable to adapt and that will kill millions.

Billy Boob, you are well named. You have zero idea of what the conditions were during those mass extinctions. There are at least three of them that the present human race would go extinct in. We just do not have the technology to adjust that quickly to those conditions. There are some people here, Crick, and Oragenicman that have knowledge of what the conditions were at those times.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

LOL. Another fruitloop non-scientist. No, I will not bother or waste my time reading anything out of WUWT.

Translation: we got nothing but our FAITH in the CO2 molecule

The math presented and the system descriptions make it easily followed. Some of the comments get into the brass tacks of it all showing how water vapor trumps the mighty CO2 Monster...

Ayup.. imagine that, the vast majority of the atmosphere trumps the minuscule portion affected by CO2. The CO2 FUD is nothing but vapor.

Current modeling only includes POSITIVE FEEDBACKS. This is why they fail every time. There must be negative feedback for any oscillation to be stable. Since these idiots dont believe in negative feedbacks their models runaway...

Dumb fuck, the models predicted Arctic Ice might be gone briefly in the summer by 2100. By observation, it appears that this will happen by 2030. Possibly much sooner.

The models predicted that the ice would (increase, decrease, be gone in 2, 10 and 100 years)

 

[Old Rocks]

Fig.1 Arctic sea ice volume anomaly from PIOMAS updated once a month. Daily Sea Ice volume anomalies for each day are computed relative to the 1979 to 2011 average for that day of the year. Tickmarks on time axis refer to 1st day of year. The trend for the period 1979- present is shown in blue. Shaded areas show one and two standard deviations from the trend. Error bars indicate the uncertainty of the monthly anomaly plotted once per year.




According to this graph too the Arctic won't become ice-free before 2025.

I'm saying this because that's how it looks right now, but it's always good to remember that the Arctic and the word 'likely' don't get along very well. I also can't stress enough that the consequences of Arctic sea ice loss do not start when the Arctic becomes ice-free for all practical purposes. These consequences are most probably already with us, and will get worse as Arctic sea ice loss progresses, regardless of the question whether the Arctic becomes ice-free this decade, the next or between 2030 and 2040. It's all a geological blink of an eye, and much sooner than anticipated just 5 years ago.

While we speculate about all this, here and on the Forum, we keep an eye on the PIOMAS figures to see what winter will bring.

PIOMAS October 2014 - Arctic Sea Ice

Here you go.

And Ice increase started in 2009-2010 while the ocean circulations were still warm. Those circulations are now cold, the undercutting of glaciers has stopped in the Antarctic and now in the Arctic just in the last three years.

Your predictive models FAILED to predict this as they have failed to predict anything... Evidence from the past indicates that we will see cooling now for about 30 to 50 some years and if the solar cycles of 3, 4, and 5 are empirical evidence of the change we are entering now, rapid cooling should begin in the next 5 years. The LIA has happened before and variations happen every 300 years.

Empirical evidence indicates your very wrong in your models predictions.

And, once again, you reply with a lie.

TC - Abstract - Elevation and elevation change of Greenland and Antarctica derived from CryoSat-2

Elevation and elevation change of Greenland and Antarctica derived from CryoSat-2
V. Helm, A. Humbert, and H. Miller
Glaciology Section, Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research, Bremerhaven, Germany
Abstract. This study focuses on the present-day surface elevation of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. Based on 3 years of CryoSat-2 data acquisition we derived new elevation models (DEMs) as well as elevation change maps and volume change estimates for both ice sheets. Here we present the new DEMs and their corresponding error maps. The accuracy of the derived DEMs for Greenland and Antarctica is similar to those of previous DEMs obtained by satellite-based laser and radar altimeters. Comparisons with ICESat data show that 80% of the CryoSat-2 DEMs have an uncertainty of less than 3 m ± 15 m. The surface elevation change rates between January 2011 and January 2014 are presented for both ice sheets. We compared our results to elevation change rates obtained from ICESat data covering the time period from 2003 to 2009. The comparison reveals that in West Antarctica the volume loss has increased by a factor of 3. It also shows an anomalous thickening in Dronning Maud Land, East Antarctica which represents a known large-scale accumulation event. This anomaly partly compensates for the observed increased volume loss of the Antarctic Peninsula and West Antarctica. For Greenland we find a volume loss increased by a factor of 2.5 compared to the ICESat period with large negative elevation changes concentrated at the west and southeast coasts. The combined volume change of Greenland and Antarctica for the observation period is estimated to be −503 ± 107 km3 yr−1. Greenland contributes nearly 75% to the total volume change with −375 ± 24 km3 yr−1.

 

[Old Rocks]

Translation: we got nothing but our FAITH in the CO2 molecule

The math presented and the system descriptions make it easily followed. Some of the comments get into the brass tacks of it all showing how water vapor trumps the mighty CO2 Monster...

Ayup.. imagine that, the vast majority of the atmosphere trumps the minuscule portion affected by CO2. The CO2 FUD is nothing but vapor.

Current modeling only includes POSITIVE FEEDBACKS. This is why they fail every time. There must be negative feedback for any oscillation to be stable. Since these idiots dont believe in negative feedbacks their models runaway...

Dumb fuck, the models predicted Arctic Ice might be gone briefly in the summer by 2100. By observation, it appears that this will happen by 2030. Possibly much sooner.

The models predicted that the ice would (increase, decrease, be gone in 2, 10 and 100 years)

Links, asshole, links.

 

[mamooth]

And Ice increase started in 2009-2010 while the ocean circulations were still warm.

No, you're just pulling crazy stuff out of your ass again.

rapid cooling should begin in the next 5 years.

You and all the ice-agers keep having to move back your predictions of when the oncoming ice age starts. That's because it just keeps warming.

Empirical evidence indicates your very wrong in your models predictions.

Empirical evidence indicates you've done a faceplant into a cow patty with every prediction you've tried to make. Why should anyone expect this time be different?

On the plus side, you have some value, due to the consistency of your wrongness. Whatever you predict, the exact opposite is likely to be true.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

On

The math presented and the system descriptions make it easily followed. Some of the comments get into the brass tacks of it all showing how water vapor trumps the mighty CO2 Monster...

Ayup.. imagine that, the vast majority of the atmosphere trumps the minuscule portion affected by CO2. The CO2 FUD is nothing but vapor.

Current modeling only includes POSITIVE FEEDBACKS. This is why they fail every time. There must be negative feedback for any oscillation to be stable. Since these idiots dont believe in negative feedbacks their models runaway...

Dumb fuck, the models predicted Arctic Ice might be gone briefly in the summer by 2100. By observation, it appears that this will happen by 2030. Possibly much sooner.

The models predicted that the ice would (increase, decrease, be gone in 2, 10 and 100 years)

Links, asshole, links.

One of the leading causes of excess water vapor in the atmosphere is the froth and spittle that comes from the Warmers when you challenge their belief system

 

[Billy_Bob]

Fig.1 Arctic sea ice volume anomaly from PIOMAS updated once a month. Daily Sea Ice volume anomalies for each day are computed relative to the 1979 to 2011 average for that day of the year. Tickmarks on time axis refer to 1st day of year. The trend for the period 1979- present is shown in blue. Shaded areas show one and two standard deviations from the trend. Error bars indicate the uncertainty of the monthly anomaly plotted once per year.




According to this graph too the Arctic won't become ice-free before 2025.

I'm saying this because that's how it looks right now, but it's always good to remember that the Arctic and the word 'likely' don't get along very well. I also can't stress enough that the consequences of Arctic sea ice loss do not start when the Arctic becomes ice-free for all practical purposes. These consequences are most probably already with us, and will get worse as Arctic sea ice loss progresses, regardless of the question whether the Arctic becomes ice-free this decade, the next or between 2030 and 2040. It's all a geological blink of an eye, and much sooner than anticipated just 5 years ago.

While we speculate about all this, here and on the Forum, we keep an eye on the PIOMAS figures to see what winter will bring.

PIOMAS October 2014 - Arctic Sea Ice

Here you go.

And Ice increase started in 2009-2010 while the ocean circulations were still warm. Those circulations are now cold, the undercutting of glaciers has stopped in the Antarctic and now in the Arctic just in the last three years.

Your predictive models FAILED to predict this as they have failed to predict anything... Evidence from the past indicates that we will see cooling now for about 30 to 50 some years and if the solar cycles of 3, 4, and 5 are empirical evidence of the change we are entering now, rapid cooling should begin in the next 5 years. The LIA has happened before and variations happen every 300 years.

Empirical evidence indicates your very wrong in your models predictions.

And, once again, you reply with a lie.

TC - Abstract - Elevation and elevation change of Greenland and Antarctica derived from CryoSat-2

Elevation and elevation change of Greenland and Antarctica derived from CryoSat-2
V. Helm, A. Humbert, and H. Miller
Glaciology Section, Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research, Bremerhaven, Germany
Abstract. This study focuses on the present-day surface elevation of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. Based on 3 years of CryoSat-2 data acquisition we derived new elevation models (DEMs) as well as elevation change maps and volume change estimates for both ice sheets. Here we present the new DEMs and their corresponding error maps. The accuracy of the derived DEMs for Greenland and Antarctica is similar to those of previous DEMs obtained by satellite-based laser and radar altimeters. Comparisons with ICESat data show that 80% of the CryoSat-2 DEMs have an uncertainty of less than 3 m ± 15 m. The surface elevation change rates between January 2011 and January 2014 are presented for both ice sheets. We compared our results to elevation change rates obtained from ICESat data covering the time period from 2003 to 2009. The comparison reveals that in West Antarctica the volume loss has increased by a factor of 3. It also shows an anomalous thickening in Dronning Maud Land, East Antarctica which represents a known large-scale accumulation event. This anomaly partly compensates for the observed increased volume loss of the Antarctic Peninsula and West Antarctica. For Greenland we find a volume loss increased by a factor of 2.5 compared to the ICESat period with large negative elevation changes concentrated at the west and southeast coasts. The combined volume change of Greenland and Antarctica for the observation period is estimated to be −503 ± 107 km3 yr−1. Greenland contributes nearly 75% to the total volume change with −375 ± 24 km3 yr−1.

LOL... That paper is about WEST ANTARCTICA ONLY and it doesn't even address the volcanoes under that sheet which are now very active...

Did you even read your own link? They even admit they can not identify if the mass loss is due to "other factors"..... Too Funny! they admit failure in one breath and the next blame it on man without facts!

 

[Billy_Bob]

And Ice increase started in 2009-2010 while the ocean circulations were still warm.

No, you're just pulling crazy stuff out of your ass again.

rapid cooling should begin in the next 5 years.

You and all the ice-agers keep having to move back your predictions of when the oncoming ice age starts. That's because it just keeps warming.

Empirical evidence indicates your very wrong in your models predictions.

Empirical evidence indicates you've done a faceplant into a cow patty with every prediction you've tried to make. Why should anyone expect this time be different?

On the plus side, you have some value, due to the consistency of your wrongness. Whatever you predict, the exact opposite is likely to be true.

The hairball speaks out its ass.... stupidity and lack of facts are your hallmark! Along with the hairball..

 

[Old Rocks]

Billy Boob
LOL... That paper is about WEST ANTARCTICA ONLY
............................................................................................................

Abstract. This study focuses on the present-day surface elevation of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. Based on 3 years of CryoSat-2 data acquisition we derived new elevation models (DEMs) as well as elevation change maps and volume change estimates for both ice sheets. Here we present the new DEMs and their corresponding error maps. The accuracy of the derived DEMs for Greenland and Antarctica is similar to those of previous DEMs obtained by satellite-based laser and radar altimeters. Comparisons with ICESat data show that 80% of the CryoSat-2 DEMs have an uncertainty of less than 3 m ± 15 m. The surface elevation change rates between January 2011 and January 2014 are presented for both ice sheets. We compared our results to elevation change rates obtained from ICESat data covering the time period from 2003 to 2009.The comparison reveals that in West Antarctica the volume loss has increased by a factor of 3. It also shows an anomalous thickening in Dronning Maud Land, East Antarctica which represents a known large-scale accumulation event. This anomaly partly compensates for the observed increased volume loss of the Antarctic Peninsula and West Antarctica. For Greenland we find a volume loss increased by a factor of 2.5 compared to the ICESat period with large negative elevation changes concentrated at the west and southeast coasts. The combined volume change of Greenland and Antarctica for the observation period is estimated to be −503 ± 107 km3 yr−1. Greenland contributes nearly 75% to the total volume change with −375 ± 24 km3 yr−1.

Billy, really, quit embarrassing yourself.