Climate change

[CrusaderFrank]

I'm just really interested to see the arguments against the concept of climate change and whether or not you believe it's due to mankind

I'm just really interested in why you say you're interested in "the arguments AGAINST the concept of climate change". Did you intend to begin your examination with a bias?

If you want to see an enormous amount of information about global warming and its causes, go to IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and have a look at the fifth assessment report (AR5). It is large, but you could start with the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) and, if you are still interested (and perhaps concerned about our future and what we might do about it) Working Group I, the Physical Science Basis. It is an assessment of published, peer reviewed research done by climate scientists around the world.

AR5? That's where they say the ocean absorbed 93% of the "Excess heat", a concept you say doesn't not even exist except as two words strung together, right?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'm just really interested to see the arguments against the concept of climate change and whether or not you believe it's due to mankind

I'm just really interested in why you say you're interested in "the arguments AGAINST the concept of climate change". Did you intend to begin your examination with a bias?

If you want to see an enormous amount of information about global warming and its causes, go to IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and have a look at the fifth assessment report (AR5). It is large, but you could start with the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) and, if you are still interested (and perhaps concerned about our future and what we might do about it) Working Group I, the Physical Science Basis. It is an assessment of published, peer reviewed research done by climate scientists around the world.

And tell him now, it states there is a pause. Go ahead, let him know that. Which, confirms that adding CO2 does not cause temperature increases. And will also validate that climate change is normal.

Now you may want to go to that 'excess heat' deal in the oceans again, but that hasn't been explained exactly what is meant by 'excessive heat'. Frank and now I are interested in the definition.

Which, confirms that adding CO2 does not cause temperature increases.

Did you ever figure out what saturation means?

You have the saturation point for CO2 at STP???? lol

You may mean "tipping point"....and I've been hearing about that since 1975...when the "tipping point" for a new ice age was on offer.

Greg

Tipping point refers to Guam, I think

 

[SillyWabbit]

1.

2. It's not Politics

3. Check out Environment sub-forum, it's been argued over ad nauseum

Wait. Maybe this one has something new to add...
Wait for it...wait for it...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm just really interested to see the arguments against the concept of climate change and whether or not you believe it's due to mankind

I'm just really interested in why you say you're interested in "the arguments AGAINST the concept of climate change". Did you intend to begin your examination with a bias?

If you want to see an enormous amount of information about global warming and its causes, go to IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and have a look at the fifth assessment report (AR5). It is large, but you could start with the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) and, if you are still interested (and perhaps concerned about our future and what we might do about it) Working Group I, the Physical Science Basis. It is an assessment of published, peer reviewed research done by climate scientists around the world.

And tell him now, it states there is a pause. Go ahead, let him know that. Which, confirms that adding CO2 does not cause temperature increases. And will also validate that climate change is normal.

Now you may want to go to that 'excess heat' deal in the oceans again, but that hasn't been explained exactly what is meant by 'excessive heat'. Frank and now I are interested in the definition.

Which, confirms that adding CO2 does not cause temperature increases.

Did you ever figure out what saturation means?

You have the saturation point for CO2 at STP???? lol

You may mean "tipping point"....and I've been hearing about that since 1975...when the "tipping point" for a new ice age was on offer.

Greg

You have the saturation point for CO2 at STP???? lol

No, do you? LOL!

You may mean "tipping point".

Nope.

 

[mamooth]

So tell me: what about the comparisons is wrong? Only a blithering idiot would resort to stupid and inaccurate diatribes against scientists without showing what is actually wrong with the data, wouldn't they.
Greg

No need to scream at the messenger. Save your anger for you cult leaders, as they were the ones who scammed you.

First, my apologies for calling it Goddard's fudged graph. It's Spencer's fudged graph. I get confused sometimes about which denier fudged what.

Now, Cowtan et al (2015) points out the apples-vs-oranges fallacy used by Goddard. The predictions of the models and the indices used by goddard are not the same thing. Once you make them the same thing, they match much more closely.

Robust comparison of climate models with observations using blended land air and ocean sea surface temperatures - Cowtan - 2015 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

Sou at Hotwhopper points out more errors in Spencer's work, mainly regarding baseline fudging and cherrypicking from the known-to-be-wrong UAH data set.

HotWhopper How Roy Spencer and John Christy trick Anthony Watts and his deniers once again

Here are some honest plots of what the actual model vs. reality plots look like. The models are pretty darn good, especially if you extend them out to the record-breaking 2014.

 

[jc456]

So tell me: what about the comparisons is wrong? Only a blithering idiot would resort to stupid and inaccurate diatribes against scientists without showing what is actually wrong with the data, wouldn't they.
Greg

No need to scream at the messenger. Save your anger for you cult leaders, as they were the ones who scammed you.

First, my apologies for calling it Goddard's fudged graph. It's Spencer's fudged graph. I get confused sometimes about which denier fudged what.

Now, Cowtan et al (2015) points out the apples-vs-oranges fallacy used by Goddard. The predictions of the models and the indices used by goddard are not the same thing. Once you make them the same thing, they match much more closely.

Robust comparison of climate models with observations using blended land air and ocean sea surface temperatures - Cowtan - 2015 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

Sou at Hotwhopper points out more errors in Spencer's work, mainly regarding baseline fudging and cherrypicking from the known-to-be-wrong UAH data set.

HotWhopper How Roy Spencer and John Christy trick Anthony Watts and his deniers once again

Here are some honest plots of what the actual model vs. reality plots look like. The models are pretty darn good, especially if you extend them out to the record-breaking 2014.

So again, not sure your point. What about .7 degree C is dangerous?

 

[flacaltenn]

So tell me: what about the comparisons is wrong? Only a blithering idiot would resort to stupid and inaccurate diatribes against scientists without showing what is actually wrong with the data, wouldn't they.
Greg

No need to scream at the messenger. Save your anger for you cult leaders, as they were the ones who scammed you.

First, my apologies for calling it Goddard's fudged graph. It's Spencer's fudged graph. I get confused sometimes about which denier fudged what.

Now, Cowtan et al (2015) points out the apples-vs-oranges fallacy used by Goddard. The predictions of the models and the indices used by goddard are not the same thing. Once you make them the same thing, they match much more closely.

Robust comparison of climate models with observations using blended land air and ocean sea surface temperatures - Cowtan - 2015 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

Sou at Hotwhopper points out more errors in Spencer's work, mainly regarding baseline fudging and cherrypicking from the known-to-be-wrong UAH data set.

HotWhopper How Roy Spencer and John Christy trick Anthony Watts and his deniers once again

Here are some honest plots of what the actual model vs. reality plots look like. The models are pretty darn good, especially if you extend them out to the record-breaking 2014.

Are you THAT DENSE !!!!!!! Any high school science student can see the different time spans between the Spencer comparison and your comparisons. Those graphs of yours show the results of the models BACKCASTING temperatures.

That should be one of the sanity checks that you DO ON models like those..

But in this case when your models are not actually climate models, but more of EMISSIONS simulators, the sensitivity of the climate to CO2 can and IS greatly exaggerated in FORECASTING... And include the uncertainties of what emissions data you are PROJECTING.

YOU -- are the ultimate apples and oranges, fruity salad type of guy.. Because the PURPOSE of your charts is entirely different. In FACT, when testing in backcasting, you can start and stop your model every 5 or 10 years and put in new KNOWN initial conditions that will KEEP it on track..

The actual SCARY models designed to spook the herd in FORECASTING have failed miserably before the reach the legal age of 21..

 

[westwall]

I'm just really interested to see the arguments against the concept of climate change and whether or not you believe it's due to mankind

The climate is always changing. Other than the urban heat island effect (which is extremely local), man has impact on global climate in the slightest.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm just really interested to see the arguments against the concept of climate change and whether or not you believe it's due to mankind

I'm just really interested in why you say you're interested in "the arguments AGAINST the concept of climate change". Did you intend to begin your examination with a bias?

If you want to see an enormous amount of information about global warming and its causes, go to IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and have a look at the fifth assessment report (AR5). It is large, but you could start with the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) and, if you are still interested (and perhaps concerned about our future and what we might do about it) Working Group I, the Physical Science Basis. It is an assessment of published, peer reviewed research done by climate scientists around the world.

And tell him now, it states there is a pause. Go ahead, let him know that. Which, confirms that adding CO2 does not cause temperature increases. And will also validate that climate change is normal.

Now you may want to go to that 'excess heat' deal in the oceans again, but that hasn't been explained exactly what is meant by 'excessive heat'. Frank and now I are interested in the definition.

Which, confirms that adding CO2 does not cause temperature increases.

Did you ever figure out what saturation means?

yep,

So when are you going to share your definition?

 

[mamooth]

Those graphs of yours show the results of the models BACKCASTING temperatures.

Obviously so, since they go back a good ways. But they also forecast, and do it well. Even Hansen's primitive 1988 model was very good.

And no, they don't put in mid-course corrections during backcasting. Contrary to your "those scientists don't know nuffink!" theories, the scientists know very well that a successful and valid backcast is necessary before a forecast can be attempted. That's why the forecasts have been so good.

 

[flacaltenn]

Those graphs of yours show the results of the models BACKCASTING temperatures.

Obviously so, since they go back a good ways. But they also forecast, and do it well. Even Hansen's primitive 1988 model was very good.

And no, they don't put in mid-course corrections during backcasting. Contrary to your "those scientists don't know nuffink!" theories, the scientists know very well that a successful and valid backcast is necessary before a forecast can be attempted. That's why the forecasts have been so good.

You showed virtually NO forecasting in those "alternate reality" graphs of yours.. Didya??

 

[mamooth]

The second one, for example, shows AR4 forecasts from 2005, compared to temperatures out to 2010. The forecasts are good, and still good if you extend them to 2014.

Since you seem to be demanding forecasts from 1970, I'm afraid I won't be able to help.

 

[jc456]

I'm just really interested to see the arguments against the concept of climate change and whether or not you believe it's due to mankind

I'm just really interested in why you say you're interested in "the arguments AGAINST the concept of climate change". Did you intend to begin your examination with a bias?

If you want to see an enormous amount of information about global warming and its causes, go to IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and have a look at the fifth assessment report (AR5). It is large, but you could start with the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) and, if you are still interested (and perhaps concerned about our future and what we might do about it) Working Group I, the Physical Science Basis. It is an assessment of published, peer reviewed research done by climate scientists around the world.

And tell him now, it states there is a pause. Go ahead, let him know that. Which, confirms that adding CO2 does not cause temperature increases. And will also validate that climate change is normal.

Now you may want to go to that 'excess heat' deal in the oceans again, but that hasn't been explained exactly what is meant by 'excessive heat'. Frank and now I are interested in the definition.

Which, confirms that adding CO2 does not cause temperature increases.

Did you ever figure out what saturation means?

yep,

So when are you going to share your definition?

after you share your evidence. You go first. Prove to me how hot 10 PPM of CO2 gets. post up that there experiment.

 

[skookerasbil]

I'm just really interested to see the arguments against the concept of climate change and whether or not you believe it's due to mankind

Really my friend, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter. Fossil fuels are not going away anytime soon..........well, at least according to all of the Obama administration projections and many others. In fact, by 2040, China's use of coal is going to grow by 50% with India being close behind. Meanwhile, not including hydropower, renewable energy will only be meeting about 10% of our energy needs by 2040!! The AGW religion says otherwise but to go green would cost 76 trillion according to the United Nations. What do you think the chances are of that happening?

So whether or not it is man-made or not is never really going to matter although having said that, there is zero proof that global warming is man-made. More importantly, there is absolutely no scientific consensus that climate change is dangerous......which is well documented within these pages. Anybody who tells you differently is telling tall tales!! ( which you do get frequently around here!!)

 

[flacaltenn]

Of course if the hairball cat wants a different reading on climate model FORECASTING performance. Doesn't like the Dr Roy Spencer version, let's just submit the IPCC AR5 version...

Sucks kibble don't it???

 

[PredFan]

I'm just really interested to see the arguments against the concept of climate change and whether or not you believe it's due to mankind

Here's what you need to understand first. Peope here, especially the left, will deceive you. They will try to control the argument by arguing about the temperatures, the weather patterns, and they love catastrophes.

Don't be led astray. The only argument is whether or not man is causing it. The fact is that they have zero proof that man is causing climate change or global warming or whatever name they decide to call it this week.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm just really interested in why you say you're interested in "the arguments AGAINST the concept of climate change". Did you intend to begin your examination with a bias?

If you want to see an enormous amount of information about global warming and its causes, go to IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and have a look at the fifth assessment report (AR5). It is large, but you could start with the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) and, if you are still interested (and perhaps concerned about our future and what we might do about it) Working Group I, the Physical Science Basis. It is an assessment of published, peer reviewed research done by climate scientists around the world.

And tell him now, it states there is a pause. Go ahead, let him know that. Which, confirms that adding CO2 does not cause temperature increases. And will also validate that climate change is normal.

Now you may want to go to that 'excess heat' deal in the oceans again, but that hasn't been explained exactly what is meant by 'excessive heat'. Frank and now I are interested in the definition.

Which, confirms that adding CO2 does not cause temperature increases.

Did you ever figure out what saturation means?

yep,

So when are you going to share your definition?

after you share your evidence. You go first. Prove to me how hot 10 PPM of CO2 gets. post up that there experiment.

after you share your evidence. You go first. Prove to me how hot 10 PPM of CO2 gets.

You must have me confused with a warmer.

I'm one of the people who thinks we should not cripple our economy or waste trillions on "green energy" in order to drop temps in 2080 by 0.1 degrees.

Okay, what's your definition of saturation?

 

[gtopa1]

I'm just really interested to see the arguments against the concept of climate change and whether or not you believe it's due to mankind

I'm just really interested in why you say you're interested in "the arguments AGAINST the concept of climate change". Did you intend to begin your examination with a bias?

If you want to see an enormous amount of information about global warming and its causes, go to IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and have a look at the fifth assessment report (AR5). It is large, but you could start with the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) and, if you are still interested (and perhaps concerned about our future and what we might do about it) Working Group I, the Physical Science Basis. It is an assessment of published, peer reviewed research done by climate scientists around the world.

And tell him now, it states there is a pause. Go ahead, let him know that. Which, confirms that adding CO2 does not cause temperature increases. And will also validate that climate change is normal.

Now you may want to go to that 'excess heat' deal in the oceans again, but that hasn't been explained exactly what is meant by 'excessive heat'. Frank and now I are interested in the definition.

Which, confirms that adding CO2 does not cause temperature increases.

Did you ever figure out what saturation means?

You have the saturation point for CO2 at STP???? lol

You may mean "tipping point"....and I've been hearing about that since 1975...when the "tipping point" for a new ice age was on offer.

Greg

You have the saturation point for CO2 at STP???? lol

No, do you? LOL!

You may mean "tipping point".

Nope.

Solubility in water at various temperatures
Aqueous Solubility of CO2 at 101.3 kPa (1 atm) partial pressure[9]
Temperature ‡Dissolved
CO2 volume
per volume H2O grams CO2 per
100 ml H2O
0 °C 1.713 0.3346
1 °C 1.646 0.3213
2 °C 1.584 0.3091
3 °C 1.527 0.2978
4 °C 1.473 0.2871
5 °C 1.424 0.2774
6 °C 1.377 0.2681
7 °C 1.331 0.2589
8 °C 1.282 0.2492
9 °C 1.237 0.2403
10 °C 1.194 0.2318
11 °C 1.154 0.2239
12 °C 1.117 0.2165
13 °C 1.083 0.2098
14 °C 1.050 0.2032
15 °C 1.019 0.1970
16 °C 0.985 0.1903
17 °C 0.956 0.1845

Temperature ‡Dissolved
CO2 volume
per volume H2O grams CO2 per

100 ml H2O
18 °C 0.928 0.1789
19 °C 0.902 0.1737
20 °C 0.878 0.1688
21 °C 0.854 0.1640
22 °C 0.829 0.1590
23 °C 0.804 0.1540
24 °C 0.781 0.1493
25 °C 0.759 0.1449
26 °C 0.738 0.1406
27 °C 0.718 0.1366
28 °C 0.699 0.1327
29 °C 0.682 0.1292
30 °C 0.655 0.1257
35 °C 0.592 0.1105
40 °C 0.530 0.0973
45 °C 0.479 0.0860
50 °C 0.436 0.0761
60 °C 0.359 0.0576

Is that what you're after??

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

So tell me: what about the comparisons is wrong? Only a blithering idiot would resort to stupid and inaccurate diatribes against scientists without showing what is actually wrong with the data, wouldn't they.
Greg

No need to scream at the messenger. Save your anger for you cult leaders, as they were the ones who scammed you.

First, my apologies for calling it Goddard's fudged graph. It's Spencer's fudged graph. I get confused sometimes about which denier fudged what.

Now, Cowtan et al (2015) points out the apples-vs-oranges fallacy used by Goddard. The predictions of the models and the indices used by goddard are not the same thing. Once you make them the same thing, they match much more closely.

Robust comparison of climate models with observations using blended land air and ocean sea surface temperatures - Cowtan - 2015 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

Sou at Hotwhopper points out more errors in Spencer's work, mainly regarding baseline fudging and cherrypicking from the known-to-be-wrong UAH data set.

HotWhopper How Roy Spencer and John Christy trick Anthony Watts and his deniers once again

Here are some honest plots of what the actual model vs. reality plots look like. The models are pretty darn good, especially if you extend them out to the record-breaking 2014.

So again, not sure your point. What about .7 degree C is dangerous?

Open Letter to Miriam O Brien of HotWhopper a.k.a. Sou Watts Up With That

New study narrows the gap between climate models and reality Watts Up With That

You might find this one interesting.

The Trouble with Global Climate Models Watts Up With That

Greg

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm just really interested in why you say you're interested in "the arguments AGAINST the concept of climate change". Did you intend to begin your examination with a bias?

If you want to see an enormous amount of information about global warming and its causes, go to IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and have a look at the fifth assessment report (AR5). It is large, but you could start with the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) and, if you are still interested (and perhaps concerned about our future and what we might do about it) Working Group I, the Physical Science Basis. It is an assessment of published, peer reviewed research done by climate scientists around the world.

And tell him now, it states there is a pause. Go ahead, let him know that. Which, confirms that adding CO2 does not cause temperature increases. And will also validate that climate change is normal.

Now you may want to go to that 'excess heat' deal in the oceans again, but that hasn't been explained exactly what is meant by 'excessive heat'. Frank and now I are interested in the definition.

Which, confirms that adding CO2 does not cause temperature increases.

Did you ever figure out what saturation means?

You have the saturation point for CO2 at STP???? lol

You may mean "tipping point"....and I've been hearing about that since 1975...when the "tipping point" for a new ice age was on offer.

Greg

You have the saturation point for CO2 at STP???? lol

No, do you? LOL!

You may mean "tipping point".

Nope.

Solubility in water at various temperatures
Aqueous Solubility of CO2 at 101.3 kPa (1 atm) partial pressure[9]
Temperature ‡Dissolved
CO2 volume
per volume H2O grams CO2 per
100 ml H2O
0 °C 1.713 0.3346
1 °C 1.646 0.3213
2 °C 1.584 0.3091
3 °C 1.527 0.2978
4 °C 1.473 0.2871
5 °C 1.424 0.2774
6 °C 1.377 0.2681
7 °C 1.331 0.2589
8 °C 1.282 0.2492
9 °C 1.237 0.2403
10 °C 1.194 0.2318
11 °C 1.154 0.2239
12 °C 1.117 0.2165
13 °C 1.083 0.2098
14 °C 1.050 0.2032
15 °C 1.019 0.1970
16 °C 0.985 0.1903
17 °C 0.956 0.1845

Temperature ‡Dissolved
CO2 volume
per volume H2O grams CO2 per

100 ml H2O
18 °C 0.928 0.1789
19 °C 0.902 0.1737
20 °C 0.878 0.1688
21 °C 0.854 0.1640
22 °C 0.829 0.1590
23 °C 0.804 0.1540
24 °C 0.781 0.1493
25 °C 0.759 0.1449
26 °C 0.738 0.1406
27 °C 0.718 0.1366
28 °C 0.699 0.1327
29 °C 0.682 0.1292
30 °C 0.655 0.1257
35 °C 0.592 0.1105
40 °C 0.530 0.0973
45 °C 0.479 0.0860
50 °C 0.436 0.0761
60 °C 0.359 0.0576

Is that what you're after??

Greg

Thanks, but no.

It started with her agreement with the idiotic claim that back radiation doesn't exist because it violates the laws of thermodynamics. She's now "improved" on that idiocy by claiming that back radiation doesn't exist because "CO2 can't absorb energy and radiate it back toward the surface because.....saturation"
There were intermediate levels of idiocy, but I think that gives a decent outline of where we are.