global warming summit in France

[flacaltenn]

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.

Really? You ditch my questions again?? This is supposed to be a conversation. Not a protest march...

As for your "discovery" ----- I guess you missed the conclusions.. Do you want me to explain them to you??

CONCLUDING REMARKS
(1) IPCC AR4 MULTI-(3D) MODEL ENSEMBLES HAVE PROVIDED OBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF UNCERTAINTY IN REGIONAL CLIMATE PREDICTIONS (GIVEN “CERTAIN” EMISSION SCENARIOS) THAT ARE USEFUL IN POLICY DISCUSSIONS.

(2) BUT THE PROBABILITY AND UNDERLYING ECONOMIC, TECHNOLOGICAL, AND POLICY ASSUMPTIONS IN THESE (SRES) EMISSION SCENARIOS ARE TOO OBSCURE TO INCORPORATE EMISSIONS UNCERTAINTY INTO CLIMATE PREDICTIONS.

(3) THE IPCC HAS YET TO CONNECT THE 3 WORKING GROUPS IN A WAY THAT FACILITATES AN EFFECTIVE INTEGRATED A SSESSMENT.

 

[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.

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

Now this is funny as hell..

You use the Karl Et Al adjusted data to make observations fit the failed modeling. Unethical pseudoscience at its worst.

Then you use the Adjusted NASA data where they added 2mm a year to the less than 1mm/year rise becasue it wasn't scary enough and to make the data fit their failed models again. More unethical pseudoscience at its worst.

It seems that your ok with unethical practice as long as it fits your agenda.

When did science take a hard left and start using unethical means to get desired results? You guys are totally laughable.

 

[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.

Really? You ditch my questions again?? This is supposed to be a conversation. Not a protest march...

As for your "discovery" ----- I guess you missed the conclusions.. Do you want me to explain them to you??

CONCLUDING REMARKS
(1) IPCC AR4 MULTI-(3D) MODEL ENSEMBLES HAVE PROVIDED OBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF UNCERTAINTY IN REGIONAL CLIMATE PREDICTIONS (GIVEN “CERTAIN” EMISSION SCENARIOS) THAT ARE USEFUL IN POLICY DISCUSSIONS.

(2) BUT THE PROBABILITY AND UNDERLYING ECONOMIC, TECHNOLOGICAL, AND POLICY ASSUMPTIONS IN THESE (SRES) EMISSION SCENARIOS ARE TOO OBSCURE TO INCORPORATE EMISSIONS UNCERTAINTY INTO CLIMATE PREDICTIONS.

(3) THE IPCC HAS YET TO CONNECT THE 3 WORKING GROUPS IN A WAY THAT FACILITATES AN EFFECTIVE INTEGRATED A SSESSMENT.

flacaltenn, I ditched your questions temporarily because I felt my point getting across would take care of them. I will look at the things you've typed and analyze them after a while. Thank you and sorry for the delay

 

[catatomic]

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

A: I believe it would be wise to start curbing social security now, so that for instance those people who will retire will get “the black and white TV instead of the color TV.” It puts us on a much sounder footing… but we can survive without doing it yet. It just costs us several trillions of dollars more and they convince us we are fine.

So with the 2 degrees “trigger”: It was sound advice for creating the best scenario to destroy climate change, but not the limit of how far we can push ourselves and survive.

I looked at “tipping point” in Wikipedia and your google query for the first 5 pages, which were:

Scientists: Global Warming Likely to Surpass 2°C Target

Our Planet Is Going to Blow Past the "Two Degrees" Climate Limit

Buckle Up: Scientists Warn of Dozens of Global Warming Tipping Points That Could Trigger Natural Disasters

What happens if we overshoot the two degree target for limiting global warming? - Carbon Brief

Scientists cite ‘irreversible’ effects of climate change, warn of greater risks unless carbon emissions are cut

This last one says what I’m thinking: “It’s not too late, but the longer you wait, the more expensive it gets,” Gary Yohe, a Wesleyan University professor who also participated in the drafting of the report, said in an interview.

I think it is exactly that: we’ve thrown out sane policy, now we are just grasping at straws. Now would you please look at my link?

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

As per your bolded points, I do not understand them and could not locate them online: please explain.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Vigilante]

and of course.....

 

[ScienceRocks]

Looks like a draft was agreed too!!!!

 

[Old Rocks]

Dear little lying corksmoker. Your guys let Bin Laden live free for seven years after he masterminded the murder of 3000 Americans on American soil. President Obama stated in his campaign for election that he would see justice served to Bin Laden, and now Bin Laden is dead. And the President has had a policy of hitting terrorists wherever they are at ever since then.

 

[Old Rocks]

Looks like a draft was agreed too!!!!

Yes, I think that the scientific advisers to the leaders at the summit have pretty well told them they need to get their asses in gear, the problem is going to be very evident in the next decade, and those standing in the doorway and blocking off the hall are going to be called to account for those actions.

 

[MarathonMike]

If you have studied climate models I am interested in how you determined that nearly all Global Warming is human caused. There are hundreds of independent variables that affect Global climate, it is not possible to isolate the human contribution as THE reason for for a fraction of a degree increase.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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

A: I believe it would be wise to start curbing social security now, so that for instance those people who will retire will get “the black and white TV instead of the color TV.” It puts us on a much sounder footing… but we can survive without doing it yet. It just costs us several trillions of dollars more and they convince us we are fine.

So with the 2 degrees “trigger”: It was sound advice for creating the best scenario to destroy climate change, but not the limit of how far we can push ourselves and survive.

I looked at “tipping point” in Wikipedia and your google query for the first 5 pages, which were:

Scientists: Global Warming Likely to Surpass 2°C Target

Our Planet Is Going to Blow Past the "Two Degrees" Climate Limit

Buckle Up: Scientists Warn of Dozens of Global Warming Tipping Points That Could Trigger Natural Disasters

What happens if we overshoot the two degree target for limiting global warming? - Carbon Brief

Scientists cite ‘irreversible’ effects of climate change, warn of greater risks unless carbon emissions are cut

This last one says what I’m thinking: “It’s not too late, but the longer you wait, the more expensive it gets,” Gary Yohe, a Wesleyan University professor who also participated in the drafting of the report, said in an interview.

I think it is exactly that: we’ve thrown out sane policy, now we are just grasping at straws. Now would you please look at my link?

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

As per your bolded points, I do not understand them and could not locate them online: please explain.

Below is a graph of historical temperatures over the recent 450 million years. IF there was/is a 2 deg C tipping point why haven't we gone into a death spiral before now?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Looks like a draft was agreed too!!!!

Yes, I think that the scientific advisers to the leaders at the summit have pretty well told them they need to get their asses in gear, the problem is going to be very evident in the next decade, and those standing in the doorway and blocking off the hall are going to be called to account for those actions.

When cooling gets into full swing you will be held to account for the lies and deceptions. The pendulum of climate is shifting to a cooling phase again..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Dear little lying corksmoker. Your guys let Bin Laden live free for seven years after he masterminded the murder of 3000 Americans on American soil. President Obama stated in his campaign for election that he would see justice served to Bin Laden, and now Bin Laden is dead. And the President has had a policy of hitting terrorists wherever they are at ever since then.

Projecting Clintons failures are we? On others to boot.... Obama used BUSH'S collection apparatus to find him and after the third time OBama was told we had him in our sights he finally, reluctantly, agreed to take him out..

Left wing morons and so pathetic..

 

[ScienceRocks]

If you have studied climate models I am interested in how you determined that nearly all Global Warming is human caused. There are hundreds of independent variables that affect Global climate, it is not possible to isolate the human contribution as THE reason for for a fraction of a degree increase.

Because the scientist disagree with you that's why. They have clearly stated that humans induced co2 has caused this warming the past 60 years.

 

[Billy_Bob]

If you have studied climate models I am interested in how you determined that nearly all Global Warming is human caused. There are hundreds of independent variables that affect Global climate, it is not possible to isolate the human contribution as THE reason for for a fraction of a degree increase.

Because the scientist disagree with you that's why. They have clearly stated that humans induced co2 has caused this warming the past 60 years.

BWHAAAAAAAAAAAAA what a pant load of AGW crap..

Ok.. Lets play your game Mathew.. ( I dont expect you to answer becasue your meme is about to be shredded)

Crick and several others have run from this direct question supported by empirical evidence. Lets see if your man enough to answer.

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

This means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificantly different DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equals the NATURAL VARIATION rate seen in the previous warming trend..

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.

SO Tell me Mathew, where is your magical CO2 signal and how did you determine it? Also, how did you manage to stop natural variation in the second temperature rise period and make it all man caused as the IPCC and EPA have stated in AR3, AR4, and the EPA endangerment finding? The IPCC and EPA have provided no scientific basis for their statements.

 

[catatomic]

Billy Bob, in the very post you quoted I said that 2 degrees wasn’t the critical number, just a practical number!

Marathon Mike, I have already answered your question:

Let me reply to a few of your reports and then tell you what I know. 50 natural and 50 natural+forcings models have been looked at. From the industrialization to 30 years ago, natural worked. Now, for 30 years it is humanity as the only explanation. Also the 6 to 8 degrees has not been scaled back. The thing about the 0.5 degree is that now its accelerating.

OK so here are some things that I know, in my own words.

Climate models do not just show the Arctic Ocean melting, the rain forests being cut down, or cities polluting the skies. They involve everything from the ground to the sky. They put cubes to cover the earth and add layers to get to the highest atmosphere.

Each cube is measured for how much heat it produces, how much it consumes, and how much it sends and receives heat from neighboring cubes.

This is called a huge set of differential equations. We cannot solve the equations but we can approximate them as close as we want, given time. Also, to account for cities some of the cubes could fit the cities. More cubes and better approximations keep coming with greater computer power.

But don’t worry about it being incorrect because the models already match the data. There were some 50 climate models that were looked at that included only natural forcings (only natural forces) and some 50 that included human forcings too. Both models were consistent with each other until about 30 years ago. In other words, the industrialization of the world did not have an impact until about 30 years ago. After 30 years, they have done all these models on 6 continents. In every continent, the temperature could only be explained by human models, and was virtually all due to humans. I say virtually just because one continent had all the natural and natural+human models intersect slightly. However the temperature is always only explained by humanity.

Better models will arise but we already know!

Also, I promised to talk about terrorism now; where is the forum for it and/or nukes?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Billy Bob, in the very post you quoted I said that 2 degrees wasn’t the critical number, just a practical number!

Marathon Mike, I have already answered your question:

Let me reply to a few of your reports and then tell you what I know. 50 natural and 50 natural+forcings models have been looked at. From the industrialization to 30 years ago, natural worked. Now, for 30 years it is humanity as the only explanation. Also the 6 to 8 degrees has not been scaled back. The thing about the 0.5 degree is that now its accelerating.

OK so here are some things that I know, in my own words.

Climate models do not just show the Arctic Ocean melting, the rain forests being cut down, or cities polluting the skies. They involve everything from the ground to the sky. They put cubes to cover the earth and add layers to get to the highest atmosphere.

Each cube is measured for how much heat it produces, how much it consumes, and how much it sends and receives heat from neighboring cubes.

This is called a huge set of differential equations. We cannot solve the equations but we can approximate them as close as we want, given time. Also, to account for cities some of the cubes could fit the cities. More cubes and better approximations keep coming with greater computer power.

But don’t worry about it being incorrect because the models already match the data. There were some 50 climate models that were looked at that included only natural forcings (only natural forces) and some 50 that included human forcings too. Both models were consistent with each other until about 30 years ago. In other words, the industrialization of the world did not have an impact until about 30 years ago. After 30 years, they have done all these models on 6 continents. In every continent, the temperature could only be explained by human models, and was virtually all due to humans. I say virtually just because one continent had all the natural and natural+human models intersect slightly. However the temperature is always only explained by humanity.

Better models will arise but we already know!

Also, I promised to talk about terrorism now; where is the forum for it and/or nukes?

Practical? not even! Its a wild ass guess, fear-mongering and one that is wrong on every level.

 

[catatomic]

No it is not those things.

 

[Billy_Bob]

No it is not those things.

Empirical evidence says otherwise.. You have not shown any empirical evidence to support your premise.

SO why in the lat 450 million years have we not death spiraled out of control when we rose 8-12 deg C?

 

[catatomic]

No it is not those things.

Empirical evidence says otherwise.. You have not shown any empirical evidence to support your premise.

SO why in the lat 450 million years have we not death spiraled out of control when we rose 8-12 deg C?

Misleading: In post 51 you made it say 8-12 degrees by going from the bottom to the top of the graph, not from the average level.

By practical I mean it is the easiest way to preserve humanity, even if that way is blocked. Sorry for the confusion there.

As far as it being a wild guess, please read my quote in post 56.

Fear-mongering? Then why did every nation and nearly every MIT scientist support it? Check out MIT OpenCourseWare | Free Online Course Materials . There are 40 courses on global warming. It is not a fraud. If a nation knew it wasn't true they could have not signed and it is unlikely we would attack or send tariffs against them. As a matter of fact they might have an easier time developing. In fact we'd all do worse because we'd have no hope. Fighting climate change is hope not fear.

Name one level it is wrong at.