global warming summit in France

[catatomic]

Billy Bob, I don't care to talk to you.

Funny how i put forth facts, empirical evidence and you all run and hide.. Your story doesn't hold even one ounce of credibility and you can not defend your position.

Funny how that works.. You only want to lie to the cullible or is it the gullible..?

I was the one in these posts who put everything together while you just touched parts of the elephants; I am not leftist; a pro or con is only such if the way it is opposite is not as substantial. I'm not here to judge Al Gore since judging anyone is counterproductive to convincing people of the importance of fighting climate change.

I agree with Crick; let's see what models you've got.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I might want to kill myself if I don't post something about the global warming summit. I have studied climate change. I have particularly studied the climate models. The temperature is definitely rising, definitely almost all human caused, it is catastrophic, and the best result of the France conference will be half enough to stop the worst effects.

I feel I could strongly argue for the importance of making this meeting a success. Talk to me.

The climate models have you worried? That's awful, sorry to hear it

 

[catatomic]

[QUOTE="Billy_Bob, post: 12954885, member: 50952

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

This summit is about wealth redistribution and control of people it is not about climate anything.![/QUOTE]


So if you say increases in CO2 do not effect temperature there is a very easy way you can be the richest man on earth. Just create an insolated laboratory with so many parts per million of CO2 and a temperature. Increase the parts per million and see if the temperature doesn't rise. Have a heat source of course like the sun. You could be the richest man on earth!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

[QUOTE="Billy_Bob, post: 12954885, member: 50952

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

This summit is about wealth redistribution and control of people it is not about climate anything.!

So if you say increases in CO2 do not effect temperature there is a very easy way you can be the richest man on earth. Just create an insolated laboratory with so many parts per million of CO2 and a temperature. Increase the parts per million and see if the temperature doesn't rise. Have a heat source of course like the sun. You could be the richest man on earth![/QUOTE]

Can you show us an experiment, a real one, not one where they have to set a match to the thermometer, where they test that?

 

[catatomic]

Have a heat source and a heat sink. Keep the rest insulated, and increase the CO2 to see if the temperature increases. Surely if all these nay-sayers are serious, they would have broken it through the media by now!

 

[Crick]

You dont have a fucking clue do you. Tell me what kinds of waste are created in building solar panels, batteries, and all the wires, oils and upkeep chemicals needed.

"Upkeep chemicals"? ! ? ! ? ! ? You're arguing in favor of fossil fuel power and you think "upkeep chemicals" tip the balance?

Had you actually studied climate and the data you would not hold these fabricated views.

You studied "climate and the data"? Was that when you were getting your degree in atmospheric physics or was it when you were getting your certificate of meteorology? I noticed that UPenn offers a certification program in meteorology. The whole thing earns you 12 undergrad credits and can be done online. I seem to recall you claimed you were working on a doctorate in meteorology. Is that still the case? Does your graduate adviser know you reject the greenhouse effect?

 

[flacaltenn]

Billy Bob, I don't care to talk to you.

Funny how i put forth facts, empirical evidence and you all run and hide.. Your story doesn't hold even one ounce of credibility and you can not defend your position.

Funny how that works.. You only want to lie to the cullible or is it the gullible..?

I was the one in these posts who put everything together while you just touched parts of the elephants; I am not leftist; a pro or con is only such if the way it is opposite is not as substantial. I'm not here to judge Al Gore since judging anyone is counterproductive to convincing people of the importance of fighting climate change.

I agree with Crick; let's see what models you've got.

Every prediction generated by climate models a mere 25 years is off course today. Which is significant -- since this whole circus started with wild-ass fantasies about 6 or 8 degC by 2100.. And about the "trigger" element in GWarming theory which states the Earth will enter an irreparable and inevitable death if the surface is provoked beyond 2degC from pre-industrial norms.

It's that LATER part of GW theory that is HIGHLY in dispute. And THAT science ain't anywhere near settled.

Do you believe that any temperature forcing of a couple degrees will lead to catastrophic destruction of the climate system? Because ALL of the PressRels prior to this latest climate gang bang, were quoted as the LAST CHANCE to stop that 2deg trigger. It's hysteria to keep the socio-political side of the GW movement alive and has very little science behind it...

 

[mamooth]

Every prediction generated by climate models a mere 25 years is off course today. Which is significant --

Except Hansen's, which was right spot on. And most of the others. The models were very good. That's just one reason why climate science has such credibility, because it's been getting everything right for decades now. Deniers can torture data and fudge and invoke conspiracies to pretend otherwise, but people have stopped caring.

since this whole circus started with wild-ass fantasies about 6 or 8 degC by 2100..

Not out of the question for the worst-case scenario, but scientists always downplayed that, and went very conservative with their predictions. That's been the pattern, scientists downplaying the risks more than they should have, because politics forced them too.

And about the "trigger" element in GWarming theory which states the Earth will enter an irreparable and inevitable death if the surface is provoked beyond 2degC from pre-industrial norms.

Can you point to such a claim in any IPCC report?

Do you believe that any temperature forcing of a couple degrees will lead to catastrophic destruction of the climate system?

Don't ask us to justify your strawman.

 

[catatomic]

I can very confidentially tell you that the temperature, while only going up a degree since 1880, will go up abruptly now even if we do the best we can. I don't think anyone is saying 2 degrees would doom us all. I seem to recollect that if we met our ultimate goal of 550 ppm CO2 it would go up around 2 degrees before it went down, and the best result of France is far from there. I think the hysteria is for those who know the truth and can't stand how hard it is to get an acceptable goal. If we go home disappointed this time, it will be a very long time before we try again. Not pleasant to me.

 

[flacaltenn]

I can very confidentially tell you that the temperature, while only going up a degree since 1880, will go up abruptly now even if we do the best we can. I don't think anyone is saying 2 degrees would doom us all. I seem to recollect that if we met our ultimate goal of 550 ppm CO2 it would go up around 2 degrees before it went down, and the best result of France is far from there. I think the hysteria is for those who know the truth and can't stand how hard it is to get an acceptable goal. If we go home disappointed this time, it will be a very long time before we try again. Not pleasant to me.

If you haven't heard the 2deg trigger part of GW theory -- then you have not studied this much at all. It is the major part of the unsettled science. And is used as a weapon by the beggars and whiners that populate these climate conferences looking for handouts to their countries.

Go google these words -- learn something -- and get back to me.
2 degree "trigger" for Global Warming

OR go to the Wiki and look up "tipping point".. There's the Gwarming unscientific hype that I'm skeptical about.

LITERALLY -- top of the news reports that the world only had 200 days to avoid atmospheric Armageddon because this next conference had to stop the 2deg trigger..

CO2 emissions from man -- by themselves -- do not have the power to destroy the climate. The effect is about 1degC/doubling of CO2. It's all the invented magic multipliers that GW science has proposed for the "acceleration" that causes the bulk of the (imagined) damage..


You can honestly tell me shit -- quite frankly -- certainly not "CONFIDENTLY".. Since LATELY -- all of the projections are in a very wide range. Nor would you have any rational basis for telling me that any time now -- temperatures are going up "abruptly"..

 

[Billy_Bob]

What models don't match what data? Let's see the source of your crap Billy.

Poor Crick gets pawned again.. The graphing below is shown with undaunted temperature data.. Dr Roy Spencer produced this graphic. The models have NO PREDICTIVE POWER whatsoever thus any policy made from the failures would also be failures... .

Its funny how alarmists forget that all hypothesis are required to go through a predictive stage to find out if the hypothesis is accurate or if it is wrong. In this case the models all failed and are therefore wrong. This shows the hypothesis wrong as well.

Making any policy based on the IPCC and the EPA's failed crap is not only stupid but self-destructive.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You dont have a fucking clue do you. Tell me what kinds of waste are created in building solar panels, batteries, and all the wires, oils and upkeep chemicals needed.

"Upkeep chemicals"? ! ? ! ? ! ? You're arguing in favor of fossil fuel power and you think "upkeep chemicals" tip the balance?

Had you actually studied climate and the data you would not hold these fabricated views.

You studied "climate and the data"? Was that when you were getting your degree in atmospheric physics or was it when you were getting your certificate of meteorology? I noticed that UPenn offers a certification program in meteorology. The whole thing earns you 12 undergrad credits and can be done online. I seem to recall you claimed you were working on a doctorate in meteorology. Is that still the case? Does your graduate adviser know you reject the greenhouse effect?

Crick pull your head from your rectum. You have shown your inability to understand even basic atmospheric physics. Your pokes and jabs dont mean shit to me and show your petty child like tantrum when your lie is exposed.

Let me guess, you think that Venus and its 90X heavier atmosphere do not create heat when the wind blows causing friction near surface. Does the suns down-weleling radiation make it to Venuses surface?

DO batteries need chemicals to work? to be kept up? to clean..?

 

[Crick]

What models don't match what data? Let's see the source of your crap Billy.

Poor Crick gets pawned again.. The graphing below is shown with undaunted temperature data.. Dr Roy Spencer produced this graphic. The models have NO PREDICTIVE POWER whatsoever thus any policy made from the failures would also be failures... .

View attachment 56240

Its funny how alarmists forget that all hypothesis are required to go through a predictive stage to find out if the hypothesis is accurate or if it is wrong. In this case the models all failed and are therefore wrong. This shows the hypothesis wrong as well.

Making any policy based on the IPCC and the EPA's failed crap is not only stupid but self-destructive.

I'd say you'd PWNED yourself, posting Roy Spencer's pathetic claptrap

Read this Billy. Everyone else here already has.

HotWhopper: Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception

 

[catatomic]

I learned that the climate change summit could help more than I thought. Here is something that I think will be very educational for all of you!:

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-sc...nd-policy-spring-2008/lecture-notes/lec16.pdf

Look at the first graph: the two degrees seems to be a very conservative figure although I know the two degrees is something. Look at more graphs - and the effects - it becomes clear.

 

[Billy_Bob]

What models don't match what data? Let's see the source of your crap Billy.

Poor Crick gets pawned again.. The graphing below is shown with undaunted temperature data.. Dr Roy Spencer produced this graphic. The models have NO PREDICTIVE POWER whatsoever thus any policy made from the failures would also be failures... .

View attachment 56240

Its funny how alarmists forget that all hypothesis are required to go through a predictive stage to find out if the hypothesis is accurate or if it is wrong. In this case the models all failed and are therefore wrong. This shows the hypothesis wrong as well.

Making any policy based on the IPCC and the EPA's failed crap is not only stupid but self-destructive.

I'd say you'd PWNED yourself, posting Roy Spencer's pathetic claptrap

Read this Billy. Everyone else here already has.

HotWhopper: Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception

Citing the lies by Miriam (aka; Slandering Sou) O'brien is not helping your lack of any real credibility. Spencer has empirical evidence and facts, Miriam on the other hand has lies and deceit.. Too funny that you choose liars to spout vs having facts and empirical evidence.. Kind of like the SKS boys and their fabrications.

 

[Kosh]

I might want to kill myself if I don't post something about the global warming summit. I have studied climate change. I have particularly studied the climate models. The temperature is definitely rising, definitely almost all human caused, it is catastrophic, and the best result of the France conference will be half enough to stop the worst effects.

I feel I could strongly argue for the importance of making this meeting a success. Talk to me.

If you have studied climate change then you would know that it is not human caused..

You have read propaganda and the models have been wrong..

The climate has been changing long before humans came into existence..

The sun will eventually get so bright and so big that it will wipe the life right off this planet.

 

[Kosh]

Mathematicians, Legendary Physicist, IPCC Expert Throw Wrenches Into UN Climate Summit

As UN’s Paris summit approaches, one of France’s top mathematics consultancies, a legendary physicist, and a former IPCC author have joined France’s best-known TV weatherman, Philippe Verdier, in delivering black eyes and severe body blows to the increasingly discredited global-warming alarm lobby. As host of the United Nations climate summit this December, the French government is pulling out all stops to make it a “success,” striving mightily to create the impression of unquestionable “consensus” on global warming — even if it means resorting to suppression of scientific dissent and freedom of expression."

Mathematicians, Legendary Physicist, IPCC Expert Throw Wrenches Into UN Climate Summit

 

[IanC]

What models don't match what data? Let's see the source of your crap Billy.

Poor Crick gets pawned again.. The graphing below is shown with undaunted temperature data.. Dr Roy Spencer produced this graphic. The models have NO PREDICTIVE POWER whatsoever thus any policy made from the failures would also be failures... .

View attachment 56240

Its funny how alarmists forget that all hypothesis are required to go through a predictive stage to find out if the hypothesis is accurate or if it is wrong. In this case the models all failed and are therefore wrong. This shows the hypothesis wrong as well.

Making any policy based on the IPCC and the EPA's failed crap is not only stupid but self-destructive.

I'd say you'd PWNED yourself, posting Roy Spencer's pathetic claptrap

Read this Billy. Everyone else here already has.

HotWhopper: Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception

Sou is grasping at straws by trying to argue that the method of normalizing the data somehow disproves the trends. here is the original graph by Christy-

trend lines only. in the area of the globe with the most stable climate.

Spencer foolishly tried to accommodate criticisms by widening the scope, number of models and types of temperature measurements. all that happened is that people like Sou moved the goalposts and tried to divert attention from the fact that basically all the models run hot. most by a considerable margin.

 

[Crick]

What models don't match what data? Let's see the source of your crap Billy.

Poor Crick gets pawned again.. The graphing below is shown with undaunted temperature data.. Dr Roy Spencer produced this graphic. The models have NO PREDICTIVE POWER whatsoever thus any policy made from the failures would also be failures... .

View attachment 56240

Its funny how alarmists forget that all hypothesis are required to go through a predictive stage to find out if the hypothesis is accurate or if it is wrong. In this case the models all failed and are therefore wrong. This shows the hypothesis wrong as well.

Making any policy based on the IPCC and the EPA's failed crap is not only stupid but self-destructive.

I'd say you'd PWNED yourself, posting Roy Spencer's pathetic claptrap

Read this Billy. Everyone else here already has.

HotWhopper: Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception

Citing the lies by Miriam (aka; Slandering Sou) O'brien is not helping your lack of any real credibility. Spencer has empirical evidence and facts, Miriam on the other hand has lies and deceit.. Too funny that you choose liars to spout vs having facts and empirical evidence.. Kind of like the SKS boys and their fabrications.

You have not a single answer. Spencer did precisely what Miriam describes. That graph is a complete load of crap.

How reliable are climate models?
Figure 1:Comparison of climate results with observations. (a) represents simulations done with only natural forcings: solar variation and volcanic activity. (b) represents simulations done with anthropogenic forcings: greenhouse gases and sulphateaerosols. (c) was done with both natural and anthropogenic forcings (IPCC).

Update on climate models and heat waves
And here you can see a number of climate models superimposed over the observed heating in the top 700 meters of the ocean (the red line):

Climate models are even more accurate than you thought | Dana Nuccitelli
Comparison of 84 climate model simulations (using RCP8.5) against HadCRUT4 observations (black), using either air temperatures (red line and shading) or blended temperatures using the HadCRUT4 method (blue line and shading). The upper panel shows anomalies derived from the unmodified climate model results, the lower shows the results adjusted to include the effect of updated forcings from Schmidt et al. (2014).

IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think | Dana Nuccitelli
IPCC AR5 Figure 1.4. Solid lines and squares represent measured average global surface temperature changes by NASA (blue), NOAA (yellow), and the UK Hadley Centre (green). The colored shading shows the projected range of surface warming in the IPCC First Assessment Report (FAR; yellow), Second (SAR; green), Third (TAR; blue), and Fourth (AR4; red). IPCC

And now here are a couple that haven't been quite as accurate...

How reliable are climate models?
Observed sea level rise since 1970 from tide gauge data (red) and satellite measurements (blue) compared to model projections for 1990-2010 from the IPCC Third Assessment Report (grey band). (Source: The Copenhagen Diagnosis, 2009)

Arctic Methane Emergency Group - AMEG - Arctic Sea Ice - Methane Release - Planetary Emergency

 

[catatomic]

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-sc...nd-policy-spring-2008/lecture-notes/lec16.pdf

Once again, look at the first graph; then look at subsequent graphs and the effects. If you follow all the climate models in this series, I am confident you would know that they're not making this up!