Pacific Ocean waters absorbing heat 15 times faster over past 60 years than in past 1

[daveman]

Pffft. Changes in temperature are caused ONLY by man-made CO2. That star in the neighborhood has NOTHING to do with it.

And if you hear of someone dying of heatstroke, that's a lie by BIG OIL. They REALLY died from too much CO2.

 

[westwall]

Do you understand the concept of "range"? Right? Like not everyone on the planet is the height of Michael Jordan, right? You do understand that science is not static? Right?

Then perhaps you can provide some information showing the models are correct.

Good luck with that.

Perhaps you can explain why you apparently believe that a scientific model is anything other than a tool to help scientists figure out if their hypotheses are on the right track.

I thought you claimed to BE a scientist? The climate models ARE the hypothesis you nimrod. And they have utterly failed. As daveman pointed out, they can't even do a hind cast with perfect knowledge of all the variables involved. Why is that?

The logical answer is because they have a built in bias. What does it mean, in science I mean..when there is a built in bias?

 

[PMZ]

Then perhaps you can provide some information showing the models are correct.

Good luck with that.

Perhaps you can explain why you apparently believe that a scientific model is anything other than a tool to help scientists figure out if their hypotheses are on the right track.

I thought you claimed to BE a scientist? The climate models ARE the hypothesis you nimrod. And they have utterly failed. As daveman pointed out, they can't even do a hind cast with perfect knowledge of all the variables involved. Why is that?

The logical answer is because they have a built in bias. What does it mean, in science I mean..when there is a built in bias?

"they can't even do a hind cast with perfect knowledge of all the variables involved."

Thus assumes that we have records of every variable affecting weather in every place on earth over the past decade.

I have the feeling that you have no idea how ridiculous that assumption is.

There is no doubt that the only significant change in climate forcing in modern history is increasing GHG concentrations from burning fossil fuels. It is the only variable that we have any control over.

So why would we study anything else????

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Perhaps you can explain why you apparently believe that a scientific model is anything other than a tool to help scientists figure out if their hypotheses are on the right track.

I thought you claimed to BE a scientist? The climate models ARE the hypothesis you nimrod. And they have utterly failed. As daveman pointed out, they can't even do a hind cast with perfect knowledge of all the variables involved. Why is that?

The logical answer is because they have a built in bias. What does it mean, in science I mean..when there is a built in bias?

"they can't even do a hind cast with perfect knowledge of all the variables involved."

Thus assumes that we have records of every variable affecting weather in every place on earth over the past decade.

I have the feeling that you have no idea how ridiculous that assumption is.

There is no doubt that the only significant change in climate forcing in modern history is increasing GHG concentrations from burning fossil fuels. It is the only variable that we have any control over.

So why would we study anything else????

Thus assumes that we have records of every variable affecting weather in every place on earth over the past decade.

I have the feeling that you have no idea how ridiculous that assumption is.

Not as ridiculous as assuming we know every variable over the next 100 years.

 

[PMZ]

I thought you claimed to BE a scientist? The climate models ARE the hypothesis you nimrod. And they have utterly failed. As daveman pointed out, they can't even do a hind cast with perfect knowledge of all the variables involved. Why is that?

The logical answer is because they have a built in bias. What does it mean, in science I mean..when there is a built in bias?

"they can't even do a hind cast with perfect knowledge of all the variables involved."

Thus assumes that we have records of every variable affecting weather in every place on earth over the past decade.

I have the feeling that you have no idea how ridiculous that assumption is.

There is no doubt that the only significant change in climate forcing in modern history is increasing GHG concentrations from burning fossil fuels. It is the only variable that we have any control over.

So why would we study anything else????

Thus assumes that we have records of every variable affecting weather in every place on earth over the past decade.

I have the feeling that you have no idea how ridiculous that assumption is.

Not as ridiculous as assuming we know every variable over the next 100 years.

You're right. We don't need to. We only need to know about what's changing and what we have control over. Atmospheric GHG concentrations.

 

[flacaltenn]

Perhaps you can explain why you apparently believe that a scientific model is anything other than a tool to help scientists figure out if their hypotheses are on the right track.

Are the models on the right track?

If they consistently fail to match with reality, they are not on the right track.

11 Hurricane models used by the National hurricane center frequently are all over the place, and yet the trends they make often are accurate enough to give emergency planners enough time to implement emergency responses. Every one of the climate models in question show the same trend. And the trend IS the correct one. And I for one think it is high time ignorant shits like you shut the fuck up and let the response planners start doing their jobs.

Hurricane models are as accurate as they NEED TO BE.. When it comes right down to it, the FORCING variables for MOVING a storm just may be TOO WEAK to GET a prediction.
You can often see those 11 models diverging RADICALLY from one another, because the MAGNITUDE of the steering currents is just not large enough. (which is a lesson for the AGW modelers, when they selectively choose a WEAK predictor of climate change as their star variable)


OTH --- The AGW models were never meant to explain or model the climate system. We know very little actually about how heat is transported or how to predict the known CYCLIC events that are currently stumping the models. The stupider thing about AGW models is that they ATTEMPT to model the ENTIRE GLOBAL SYSTEM --- rather than make more accurate predictions just about the Poles, or Tropics or the Cont. USA. This is because climate science is in a rush to validate a GLOBAL EMERGENCY -- not push scientific knowledge. Which is why I'm a fan of EVERY researcher out there that DOESN"T think the climate is driven by CO2. THESE are the dudes/dudettes who understand that CO2 is not even the DOMINANT GHGas..

 

[daveman]

"they can't even do a hind cast with perfect knowledge of all the variables involved."

Thus assumes that we have records of every variable affecting weather in every place on earth over the past decade.

I have the feeling that you have no idea how ridiculous that assumption is.

There is no doubt that the only significant change in climate forcing in modern history is increasing GHG concentrations from burning fossil fuels. It is the only variable that we have any control over.

So why would we study anything else????

Thus assumes that we have records of every variable affecting weather in every place on earth over the past decade.

I have the feeling that you have no idea how ridiculous that assumption is.

Not as ridiculous as assuming we know every variable over the next 100 years.

You're right. We don't need to. We only need to know about what's changing and what we have control over. Atmospheric GHG concentrations.

Yes, because EVERYTHING ELSE in the atmosphere and oceans is static. Nothing ever changes but manmade greenhouse gases.

 

[PMZ]

Thus assumes that we have records of every variable affecting weather in every place on earth over the past decade.

I have the feeling that you have no idea how ridiculous that assumption is.

Not as ridiculous as assuming we know every variable over the next 100 years.

You're right. We don't need to. We only need to know about what's changing and what we have control over. Atmospheric GHG concentrations.

Yes, because EVERYTHING ELSE in the atmosphere and oceans is static. Nothing ever changes but manmade greenhouse gases.

Actually, most things change every second. Just not over the long term, and big picture.

 

[daveman]

You're right. We don't need to. We only need to know about what's changing and what we have control over. Atmospheric GHG concentrations.

Yes, because EVERYTHING ELSE in the atmosphere and oceans is static. Nothing ever changes but manmade greenhouse gases.

Actually, most things change every second. Just not over the long term.

At least you admit your complete ignorance of science. You're the perfect AGW cultist.

 

[PMZ]

Yes, because EVERYTHING ELSE in the atmosphere and oceans is static. Nothing ever changes but manmade greenhouse gases.

Actually, most things change every second. Just not over the long term.

At least you admit your complete ignorance of science. You're the perfect AGW cultist.

And you're a perfect idiot. Trying to solve science problems with politics.

Ridiculous.

 

[daveman]

Actually, most things change every second. Just not over the long term.

At least you admit your complete ignorance of science. You're the perfect AGW cultist.

And you're a perfect idiot. Trying to solve science problems with politics.

Ridiculous.

You even get THAT wrong. That's what the AGW cult is trying to do.

 

[PMZ]

At least you admit your complete ignorance of science. You're the perfect AGW cultist.

And you're a perfect idiot. Trying to solve science problems with politics.

Ridiculous.

You even get THAT wrong. That's what the AGW cult is trying to do.

The IPCC pretty much invented climate science. Fox propaganda pretty much invented denialism. I know which side I'm on.

 

[freedombecki]

And you're a perfect idiot. Trying to solve science problems with politics.

Ridiculous.

You even get THAT wrong. That's what the AGW cult is trying to do.

The IPCC pretty much invented climate science. Fox propaganda pretty much invented denialism. I know which side I'm on.

With all the hot air being on the Atlantic side in Washington, it's no wonder the Pacific is chilling. And to borrow some of your upcoming thunder ahead of time, "prove it isn't true."

You really need to lighten up, PMZ.

 

[westwall]

Actually, most things change every second. Just not over the long term.

At least you admit your complete ignorance of science. You're the perfect AGW cultist.

And you're a perfect idiot. Trying to solve science problems with politics.

Ridiculous.

Ummmmmm, we're not the ones trying to pass legislation that will control every facet of peoples lives. That's YOU ASSHOLES! That's politics dipshit. Not us.

 

[Abraham3]

It`s easy to prove you wrong

Then why do you fail to do so?

the problem is that people like you are unable to accept scientific proof which is based on actual & measured data and yields real correlations.

Just for starters and cause this is just about my favorite nagging point: there's no such thing as proof in the natural sciences. Secondly, I have no problem accepting proper applications of the scientific method. That's why I tend very strongly to accept the views of mainstream science. You're the one that is rejecting all the actual evidence out of hand.

Your lot is hell bent to average everything that is not ppm CO2 & temperature to death, till it`s a constant "average" value, which is then plugged into these garbage in/garbage out computer models.

I have done no such thing. Models make use of lots of averages and integrals and running means and average standard deviations and floating norms and RMSs because the have to; the world is a very big place.

Thus you keep insisting it`s CO2 that drives temperature first and foremost.

The world's climate scientists tell us that CO2 is the primary driver because that is what their calculation tell them. And, as I have told you before, you're just going to have to pardon me for preferring their word to yours.

You got your heads buried far too deep in your own bullshit while "climate science estimates" have been "updated".

Your babbling.

Here is what the IPCC stated in the AR4:

Yes. I've read it

Between 1902 and 1957, Charles Abbot and a number of other scientists around the globe made thousands of measurements of TSI from mountain sites. Values ranged from 1,322 to 1,465 W m–2, which encompasses the current estimate of 1,365 W m–2

That's an 11% range of values. Yet modern measurements show less than 3% in the 11-year cycle and less than half that in the last century's change. I'd say this was an indication of some crap data pre-satellite. Funny how much that sounds like something you'd say about some dataset we 'warmers' had presented.

Tett et al., 1999; Cubasch and Voss, 2000) suggest that the changes in solar radiation could cause surface temperature changes of the order of a few tenths of a degree celsius.

Tett (Gambassa - Ammon Tuimaualuga - web document - (Tett et al. 1999) was suggesting TSI changes affected global temperatures in the early part of the century. His paper fully accepts and supports AGW.

Cubasch and Voss were talking about the 11-year cycle when they mentioned a temperature change of a few tenths C. The two of them have spent the last several years working on SOLVO: "The aim of this project is to investigate the solar influence on climate with a GCM recently developed at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, USA. The model is the first that has been designed specifically to investigate the interaction between radiation, chemistry and dynamics from the Earth's surface to the thermosphere (140 km). The close collaboration with NCAR's experienced model team ensures the realization of the project which adds new aspects to previous work with GCMs looking for the mechanism of Sun-climate interactions."

Neither of these folks have said anything that would alter the current understanding of AGW. All three of them accept AGW as settled science.

So... where's your proof?

There are tons of data, but none of that will ever appear on one of these dumb blogs you keep quoting:

I've seen these plots in numerous locations. They are not being repressed.

Take another look at solar irradiance & temperature @ 1940...you know the data point you tried to use in order to "prove" that CO2 leads temperature !

Surprising that you would bring that up. At that point point in time, CO2 levels dropped and, within two years, temperatures dropped. TSI, on the other hand, chose that point in time to accelerate an upward climb. So, what correlation are you seeing?

If you only trust reconstructions that re-inforce your CO2 psychosis and have an issue with solar irradiance reconstructions there is much more recent data that show the same nearly perfect correlation...

Changes in TSI do have an effect on global temperatures but they're small ones. The actual changes in TSI over the pertinent time period simply have not been large enough to have caused the observed warming.

Scroll down column 5 and keep track how far off the "current estimate" is, which these milkmaid math computers models have been plugging in.
I can`t find even a single occurance of 1365 [watts/m^2] most are at ~ 1360 to 1361.5 which is the highest one listed.

That's right. Cause if you look at the TSI sources to which the IPCC refers, you will see the change over the last century has been much smaller than some earlier estimates - the estimates you and FCT like to use.

It takes a real idiot to try find the 1.6 watts/m^2 "missing heat" in the ocean`s depth while the IPCC`s "estimate" has been 5 watts/m^2 too high for the entire time period and data set since it has been logged with ERBS, ACRIM-III, VIRGO, ACRIM-I and ACRIM-II.

I am uncertain what you're trying to say here. If you're suggesting that BTK did not find a sharp recent rise in OHC, I would have to say you're full of __it. If you're trying to say something else, you're going to have to make yourself a little more comprehensible.

 

[PMZ]

You even get THAT wrong. That's what the AGW cult is trying to do.

The IPCC pretty much invented climate science. Fox propaganda pretty much invented denialism. I know which side I'm on.

With all the hot air being on the Atlantic side in Washington, it's no wonder the Pacific is chilling. And to borrow some of your upcoming thunder ahead of time, "prove it isn't true."

You really need to lighten up, PMZ.

Why?

 

[PMZ]

At least you admit your complete ignorance of science. You're the perfect AGW cultist.

And you're a perfect idiot. Trying to solve science problems with politics.

Ridiculous.

Ummmmmm, we're not the ones trying to pass legislation that will control every facet of peoples lives. That's YOU ASSHOLES! That's politics dipshit. Not us.

Not us. Our business is progress. There are many obstacles to progress. Ignorance. Irresponsibility. Bigotry. Apathy. Self centeredness.

We take things on rather than run from them. Don't worry. We'll carry you.

 

[Abraham3]

Ummmmmm, we're not the ones trying to pass legislation that will control every facet of peoples lives. That's YOU ASSHOLES! That's politics dipshit. Not us.

What legislation?

What facets of whose lives?

 

[PMZ]

Ummmmmm, we're not the ones trying to pass legislation that will control every facet of peoples lives. That's YOU ASSHOLES! That's politics dipshit. Not us.

What legislation?

What facets of everyone's lives?

Anarchy is big in these parts. For its compatability with irresponsibility and ignorance.

 

[orogenicman]

The models have consistently failed to predict PAST temperatures.

Why would they need to? We have at least a dozen proxies and other direct and indirect methods for making past temperature determinations.

If they can't predict what we know already happened, they're useless for predicting the future.

Period.

Red herring.

So...you don't give a shit if the models are accurate, as long as they give you the answer you want.

Tell me more about how you love science.

Gee, another red herring. Want some tartar sauce with that?