Global Warming Actually Still Accelerating - no "lull"

[PMZ]

It's interesting that deniers, who are fueled 100% by folks managing public opinion, instead of science, believe that the IPCC should ignore public understanding of their complex and obscure to non scientists technology, and keep it complex and obscure.

 

[PMZ]

The ARGO data is not necessary to prove AGW. That has been done by theory, modeling and data. No matter how much deniers wish it to be otherwise.

The ARGO data is important for other reasons like to understand the transitional mechanisms the land, oceans, ice and atmosphere go through in response to the higher energy the earth receives due to higher GHG concentrations.

Theory, modeling and data proves nothing... LOL, you just tried to claim a theory can prove itself correct, and are obviously either too stupid to know it, or to ignorant to understand the significance of that ignorance...

"Theory, modeling and data proves nothing"

This is a stupid statement even at Slacksack's normal level of stupidity.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The ARGO data is not necessary to prove AGW. That has been done by theory, modeling and data. No matter how much deniers wish it to be otherwise.

The ARGO data is important for other reasons like to understand the transitional mechanisms the land, oceans, ice and atmosphere go through in response to the higher energy the earth receives due to higher GHG concentrations.

Theory, modeling and data proves nothing... LOL, you just tried to claim a theory can prove itself correct, and are obviously either too stupid to know it, or to ignorant to understand the significance of that ignorance...

"Theory, modeling and data proves nothing"

This is a stupid statement even at Slacksack's normal level of stupidity.

"Before Einstein, scientists stated the energy could not be created nor destroyed. After Einstein, that was ammended by the addition of, "by ordinary means", neglecting of course that on a universal scale there is nothing more ordinary than nuclear fusion."

Did you actually say that?

 

[gslack]

Theory, modeling and data proves nothing... LOL, you just tried to claim a theory can prove itself correct, and are obviously either too stupid to know it, or to ignorant to understand the significance of that ignorance...

"Theory, modeling and data proves nothing"

This is a stupid statement even at Slacksack's normal level of stupidity.

"Before Einstein, scientists stated the energy could not be created nor destroyed. After Einstein, that was ammended by the addition of, "by ordinary means", neglecting of course that on a universal scale there is nothing more ordinary than nuclear fusion."

Did you actually say that?

Why yes he did.. LOL, he also called the science settled, and then said the science was never settled in the same thread, on the same subject...

He's an idiot..

 

[gslack]

The ARGO data is not necessary to prove AGW. That has been done by theory, modeling and data. No matter how much deniers wish it to be otherwise.

The ARGO data is important for other reasons like to understand the transitional mechanisms the land, oceans, ice and atmosphere go through in response to the higher energy the earth receives due to higher GHG concentrations.

Theory, modeling and data proves nothing... LOL, you just tried to claim a theory can prove itself correct, and are obviously either too stupid to know it, or to ignorant to understand the significance of that ignorance...

"Theory, modeling and data proves nothing"

This is a stupid statement even at Slacksack's normal level of stupidity.

Unfamiliar with what proof is.. Not surprising... A model using data is not proof, it's evidence but not proof. There can be other mitigating circumstances, other factors involved, or the assumptions on the data could be wrong. All of which we find quite often in research.

But then what else can we expect from an obvious zealot...

 

[IanC]

"Theory, modeling and data proves nothing"

This is a stupid statement even at Slacksack's normal level of stupidity.

"Before Einstein, scientists stated the energy could not be created nor destroyed. After Einstein, that was ammended by the addition of, "by ordinary means", neglecting of course that on a universal scale there is nothing more ordinary than nuclear fusion."

Did you actually say that?

Why yes he did.. LOL, he also called the science settled, and then said the science was never settled in the same thread, on the same subject...

He's an idiot..

I don't think that quote was originally composed by pmz.

Only an idiot would consider that quote as evidence of idiocy.

 

[Abraham3]

"Before Einstein, scientists stated the energy could not be created nor destroyed. After Einstein, that was ammended by the addition of, "by ordinary means", neglecting of course that on a universal scale there is nothing more ordinary than nuclear fusion."

Did you actually say that?

Why yes he did.. LOL, he also called the science settled, and then said the science was never settled in the same thread, on the same subject...

He's an idiot..

I don't think that quote was originally composed by pmz.

Only an idiot would consider that quote as evidence of idiocy.

"Theory, modeling and data proves nothing"

That is a stupid statement. The word "data" is plural. It should have read that they "prove nothing". Stupid, stupid, stupid. The opinion as well.

 

[westwall]

Why yes he did.. LOL, he also called the science settled, and then said the science was never settled in the same thread, on the same subject...

He's an idiot..

I don't think that quote was originally composed by pmz.

Only an idiot would consider that quote as evidence of idiocy.

"Theory, modeling and data proves nothing"

That is a stupid statement. The word "data" is plural. It should have read that they "prove nothing". Stupid, stupid, stupid. The opinion as well.

Yeah, about those models....

"Current Crop of Computer Models “Close to Useless”

It is this second class of models, the economic/climate hybrids called Integrated Assessment Models, that Pindyck discusses. Pindyck’s paper is titled, “Climate Change Policy: What Do the Models Tell Us?” Here is his shocking answer, contained in the abstract:

Very little. A plethora of integrated assessment models (IAMs) have been constructed and used to estimate the social cost of carbon (SCC) and evaluate alternative abatement policies. These models have crucial flaws that make them close to useless as tools for policy analysis: certain inputs (e.g. the discount rate) are arbitrary, but have huge effects on the SCC estimates the models produce; the models’ descriptions of the impact of climate change are completely ad hoc, with no theoretical or empirical foundation; and the models can tell us nothing about the most important driver of the SCC, the possibility of a catastrophic climate outcome. IAM-based analyses of climate policy create a perception of knowledge and precision, but that perception is illusory and misleading. [Bold added.]"







Institute for Energy Research | Scathing MIT Paper Blasts Obama?s Climate Models

 

[PMZ]

From the reference above.

"Robert S. Pindyck is a professor of economics and finance at MIT, with several decades’ experience publishing articles and books dealing with energy. Moreover, as he explains in this interview, Pindyck believes that man-made emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases will impose climate change damages on future generations, and is an advocate of a carbon tax agreement among the major world governments (though he is doubtful such a tax is politically feasible). With a pedigree like that, you might expect Pindyck to be very complimentary about the computer models that the Obama Administration and other policymakers are using to justify the economics of anti-carbon measures. But as it turns out, Pindyck has written a new, peer-reviewed paper (forthcoming in the Journal of Economic Literature) that is absolutely scathing in its critique of such models. In this post I’ll highlight some of his points."

"Two Types of Computer Models"

"In the climate change policy debate, there are two types of computer models. One type refers to models of the Earth’s climate that are created as simplified simulations of the atmosphere, ocean, sun’s radiation, etc. that rely just on the natural sciences such as physics, chemistry, and biology. These are the computer models that people have in mind when they say things like, “Global temperatures have been basically flat for years, and yet the official models predicted more warming than has actually occurred.”"

"But there are another set of models—called Integrated Assessment Models or IAMs—that have been created by economists, not climate scientists. The IAMs rely on condensed versions of the full-blown climate models as part of their structure, but they also rely on (crude) simulations of the global economy to try and assess the interaction between the economic and climate systems. In addition to all of the uncertainty stemming just from the physical science itself—such as asking how much global temperatures will increase in the long run, in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations—the IAMs have another layer of guesswork. For example, they have to make projections of “business as usual” growth in carbon dioxide emissions, in order to understand the full economic impact of emitting one more ton of CO2 today. These computer simulations are then used to gauge the likely results of various types of government policies to restrict emissions, which will affect both the economy and the climate."

All of the discussion here has been about climate models assembled by the IPCC.

So, this is a brand new topic. Economic and business models.

I for one have never read one, by anybody. So I have no opinion on this paper.

The guy could be completely right, completely wrong, or, most likely, someplace in between.

And, at least in this article, he doesn't seem to be specific about which papers he's criticizing.

For sure he has no expertise in the science of climatology.

 

[Abraham3]

As the man said, every model ever discussed heretofore was a climate model, not some sort of new hybrid. This does not rescue GSlack from having said a very stupid thing.

 

[westwall]

From the reference above.

"Robert S. Pindyck is a professor of economics and finance at MIT, with several decades’ experience publishing articles and books dealing with energy. Moreover, as he explains in this interview, Pindyck believes that man-made emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases will impose climate change damages on future generations, and is an advocate of a carbon tax agreement among the major world governments (though he is doubtful such a tax is politically feasible). With a pedigree like that, you might expect Pindyck to be very complimentary about the computer models that the Obama Administration and other policymakers are using to justify the economics of anti-carbon measures. But as it turns out, Pindyck has written a new, peer-reviewed paper (forthcoming in the Journal of Economic Literature) that is absolutely scathing in its critique of such models. In this post I’ll highlight some of his points."

"Two Types of Computer Models"

"In the climate change policy debate, there are two types of computer models. One type refers to models of the Earth’s climate that are created as simplified simulations of the atmosphere, ocean, sun’s radiation, etc. that rely just on the natural sciences such as physics, chemistry, and biology. These are the computer models that people have in mind when they say things like, “Global temperatures have been basically flat for years, and yet the official models predicted more warming than has actually occurred.”"

"But there are another set of models—called Integrated Assessment Models or IAMs—that have been created by economists, not climate scientists. The IAMs rely on condensed versions of the full-blown climate models as part of their structure, but they also rely on (crude) simulations of the global economy to try and assess the interaction between the economic and climate systems. In addition to all of the uncertainty stemming just from the physical science itself—such as asking how much global temperatures will increase in the long run, in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations—the IAMs have another layer of guesswork. For example, they have to make projections of “business as usual” growth in carbon dioxide emissions, in order to understand the full economic impact of emitting one more ton of CO2 today. These computer simulations are then used to gauge the likely results of various types of government policies to restrict emissions, which will affect both the economy and the climate."

All of the discussion here has been about climate models assembled by the IPCC.

So, this is a brand new topic. Economic and business models.

I for one have never read one, by anybody. So I have no opinion on this paper.

The guy could be completely right, completely wrong, or, most likely, someplace in between.

And, at least in this article, he doesn't seem to be specific about which papers he's criticizing.

For sure he has no expertise in the science of climatology.

Yes, thank you for making the point that the man who wrote the paper is a WARMIST, and even HE says the models are SHIT!

When you put your foot in it do you have to open wide or is your pie hole just simply huge?

 

[orogenicman]

In fact, several years ago I took satellite photos of the Pinatubo eruption

Dang. I wish I had my own satellite.

(And yes, I know what you meant.)

You do. If you are an American, you paid for a large fraction of the ones up there, so technically, you do own them. And yes, you too can access the data coming down from a lot of them, if you know where to look for it (some of it costs for access).

 

[orogenicman]

And that "vast bulk" has nothing to do with commercial nuclear power. The LL maintenance waste from 50 nuke plants PALLS in comparision to 2600 Nuclear Medicine hospital wings and related industries.

Whatcha wanna do? Close the Nuclear Med Centers??
Best call you new girl at the EPA and tell her to get her ass over to Yucca Mtn and pay off whoever needs to get paid off...

My point is only that most radioactive waste is low level waste, and that most of the low level waste cannot be recycled, which is true. Man, what have you been smoking?

Wish I had been smoking something..

Look -- it's just not relevent to the questions of adopting nuclear power for electricity.. It's part of the strategic problem of nuclear waste.

Would be like realizing that not ALL EVIL OIL is used for gasoline.. And that we'll still have to deal with drilling and selling about 1/2 of it ---- when and if we move transportation energy elsewhere..

I disagree. Disposal of nuclear waste is critical to any policy promoting nuclear energy. Using oil to power our machines is extremely wasteful, because it is a finite resource, and has so many critical uses elsewhere, such as in medicine and plastics.

 

[orogenicman]

I realize you won't read the paper. No sense spending ten minutes getting smarter. But you could have wasted the ten seconds it would have taken to read my post with your brain engaged.

THE ARGO DATA SHOWS MORE WARMING BELOW 700 METERS AFTER 1998 THAN DOES THE NON-ARGO DATA.



Seems to me you ought to read the paper.



You wish.

It does? Show us. And not models, we want raw data.

Took about 20 milliseconds to find it. Have at it:

Temperature Data

You wanted the raw data. You got it. Now, what I want from you is to take that data and produce something (anything) that refutes the papers based on this data that says the oceans are heating up (particularly at depth). Shit or get off the pot.

How is that paper coming along, westwall?

 

[Abraham3]

We've been told several times now that the Greenhouse Effect cannot be made to work on other planets. I'd like a link to a peer reviewed paper supporting that contention.

 

[gslack]

"Before Einstein, scientists stated the energy could not be created nor destroyed. After Einstein, that was ammended by the addition of, "by ordinary means", neglecting of course that on a universal scale there is nothing more ordinary than nuclear fusion."

Did you actually say that?

Why yes he did.. LOL, he also called the science settled, and then said the science was never settled in the same thread, on the same subject...

He's an idiot..

I don't think that quote was originally composed by pmz.

Only an idiot would consider that quote as evidence of idiocy.

LOL, going to add liar to your list of accomplishments Ian? The quotes are legit asshole... You want to call me a liar? Man up and do it then... Go and find the quotes here, prove me a liar...

You have it to do coward, if you cannot prove them false, I expect an apology...

 

[gslack]

Here's the link to the quote Ian just accused me of inaccurately citing to his pal PMZ...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7656080-post113.html

Before Einstein, scientists stated the energy could not be created nor destroyed.

After Einstein, that was ammended by the addition of, "by ordinary means", neglecting of course that on a universal scale there is nothing more ordinary than nuclear fusion.

His words bolded, taken verbatim from the sourced post...Incidently, everything in that post, save for a few of the more ignorant lines was stolen from another website, i pointed this out to the plagarizing weasel, and his excuse was he had "" in it.. No link, no source, no atribution, the dude even edited in his own line into the thing... My response to that post where I show this fact with links...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7656213-post115.html

I expect may apolgy now Ian....

 

[flacaltenn]

Without the armada of Argo floats -- what you're left with is not much better than the historical data. And the MODERN portion of the data probably departs DRASTICALLY with the earlier data..

I realize you won't read the paper. No sense spending ten minutes getting smarter. But you could have wasted the ten seconds it would have taken to read my post with your brain engaged.

THE ARGO DATA SHOWS MORE WARMING BELOW 700 METERS AFTER 1998 THAN DOES THE NON-ARGO DATA.



Seems to me you ought to read the paper.

A GLOBAL average at 700m is elusive and meaningless...

You wish.

It does? Show us. And not models, we want raw data.

Seems like these guys (Oro-man and Abraham) believe that this short technical "letter" was a fully illuminated "study".. There is a massive amount of handwaving regarding data prep in that short story we're discussing.

A note here about "bias correction being done with the modern Argo data" --- A note there about the model adding "corrections" to the historical data.. And NO FREAKING idea of how much of the result is data and how much is programming.

MAYBE --- on SOME other PLANET --- scientists are happy to TRUST and be disinterested in details.. But not in the circles I inhabit.. And CERTAINLY not for climate scientists who just discovered that the Oceans store 90% of the energy..

I want to know HOW they covered the planet with the available data.

Want to know how seasonal corrections were made.. How undersampled historical data was used. I want to know HOW MANY SAMPLES below 700 meters were USED to drive the model..

Not interested in the details of the MODEL resolution.. I want to know about HISTORICAL resolution of the data.

Anybody that knows crap about the oceans ---- KNOWS that thermal effects at depth are LOCALIZED artifacts. Miss ONE major thermocline and you're data is crap..

 

[flacaltenn]

Given what I asked above about how much DATA was used used below 700m..

You might want to reference what the SPATIAL distribution of that "warming" might be..

Miss a warm current at 250m, find a warm spot at 800... Does the MODEL do this for you?

 

[westwall]

It does? Show us. And not models, we want raw data.

Took about 20 milliseconds to find it. Have at it:

Temperature Data

You wanted the raw data. You got it. Now, what I want from you is to take that data and produce something (anything) that refutes the papers based on this data that says the oceans are heating up (particularly at depth). Shit or get off the pot.

How is that paper coming along, westwall?

What was that olfraud? BUSTED!