Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If you had something to refute the claims that the models are inaccurate, you'd present it.I accept your surrender.
The fact that you believe that someone is winning and someone is losing demonstrates your level of immaturity by believing this to be nothing but a game. Oh dear.
You haven't. So you don't. And I know this will come as a shock to you, but your say-so is not compelling.
Bring something, or STFU. It's that simple.
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.
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.
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.
Your babbling.
Yes. I've read it
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 (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?
I've seen these plots in numerous locations. They are not being repressed.
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?
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.
It`s easy to prove you wrong
Then why do you fail to do so?
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.
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.
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.
Your babbling.
Yes. I've read it
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 (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?
I've seen these plots in numerous locations. They are not being repressed.
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?
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.
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.
The IPCC FABRICATED a different method of calculating TSI change since 1750. One the IGNORES all of the documented evidence. It is based on pure deceit to take the TSI values WITH the solar cycle variations sitting on TOP of that curve. Why? I could explain it but you chance of understanding. Anyone who's CAPABLE of understanding it -- I'd be glad to discuss this dishonesty and fraud.
We are only looking for 0.12% SHIFT in TSI to explain ALL of the warming. OR we are looking for modulations of the SHAPE of the solar insolation spectrum. MINOR shifts in HOW much solar energy occurs in different bands could FULLY explain additional heating. We KNOW for instance that UV values have increased GREATLY compared to other bands. If that energy shifted from the IR bands without changing the TSI --- you could still end up heating the surface MORE than enough to account for the warming. We need 20 or 40 more years of satellite data before we can even OBSERVE how "constant" the solar constant really is....
Then why do you fail to do so?
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.
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.
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.
Your babbling.
Yes. I've read it
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 (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?
I've seen these plots in numerous locations. They are not being repressed.
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?
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.
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.
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.
The IPCC FABRICATED a different method of calculating TSI change since 1750. One the IGNORES all of the documented evidence. It is based on pure deceit to take the TSI values WITH the solar cycle variations sitting on TOP of that curve. Why? I could explain it but you chance of understanding. Anyone who's CAPABLE of understanding it -- I'd be glad to discuss this dishonesty and fraud.
We are only looking for 0.12% SHIFT in TSI to explain ALL of the warming. OR we are looking for modulations of the SHAPE of the solar insolation spectrum. MINOR shifts in HOW much solar energy occurs in different bands could FULLY explain additional heating. We KNOW for instance that UV values have increased GREATLY compared to other bands. If that energy shifted from the IR bands without changing the TSI --- you could still end up heating the surface MORE than enough to account for the warming. We need 20 or 40 more years of satellite data before we can even OBSERVE how "constant" the solar constant really is....
Go ahead, Lucy, 'splain. (This should be good). Oh wait, that was your explanation. Yes more data is always good. But to suggest that we don't have enough solar data, well that's just not a good argument to make. We have more high quality solar data that we've ever had, far more than other types of data, in fact. To continue to make this argument that it is the sun that is the problem, particularly when it appears to be heading for a log-term minimum, is not just silly, it is unwarranted.
).
The IPCC FABRICATED a different method of calculating TSI change since 1750. One the IGNORES all of the documented evidence. It is based on pure deceit to take the TSI values WITH the solar cycle variations sitting on TOP of that curve. Why? I could explain it but you chance of understanding. Anyone who's CAPABLE of understanding it -- I'd be glad to discuss this dishonesty and fraud.
We are only looking for 0.12% SHIFT in TSI to explain ALL of the warming. OR we are looking for modulations of the SHAPE of the solar insolation spectrum. MINOR shifts in HOW much solar energy occurs in different bands could FULLY explain additional heating. We KNOW for instance that UV values have increased GREATLY compared to other bands. If that energy shifted from the IR bands without changing the TSI --- you could still end up heating the surface MORE than enough to account for the warming. We need 20 or 40 more years of satellite data before we can even OBSERVE how "constant" the solar constant really is....
Go ahead, Lucy, 'splain. (This should be good). Oh wait, that was your explanation. Yes more data is always good. But to suggest that we don't have enough solar data, well that's just not a good argument to make. We have more high quality solar data that we've ever had, far more than other types of data, in fact. To continue to make this argument that it is the sun that is the problem, particularly when it appears to be heading for a log-term minimum, is not just silly, it is unwarranted.
For you ---- I will.. The TSI values are different from the zero baseline "sunspot activity" proxy for TSI.. When you look at the SORCE/TIM curve (for example, back one page in PBear's post) you can see the cyclic 22 yr solar cycles superimposed on top of the increased baseline. It's the AVERAGE of that TSI over more than 300 yrs that has increased by 1.2W/m2 --- NOT the latest yearly value wrt to 1750. The IPCC IGNORED EVERYTHING ABOUT the long term trend and baseline to derive a number that is MINISCULE in comparison to the actual AVERAGE increase. They did this by using the LATEST YEARLY VALUE (which coincides with a relative low solar period of time). The cyclical solar cycle portion of the curve is a large percentage of the ABSOLUTE --- and that's how they lied.
The thermal mass and inertia of the Earth is too large to equalize to new temperature in a few years. We know that now since your climate heroes JUST NOW DISCOVERED that the earth STORES heat. (bless their slow uptake on that "discovery" 20 yrs into the debate and MUCH after they declared "the science is settled"
As for needing more data --- of course we do.. There were ever only 2 or 3 REAL TIME sat measurement packages and 2 of those are now defunct. And we never even got data over a COMPLETE solar cycle.. You cannot accurately measure TSI from the earth surface. Because the atmos you're trying to study is in the way.
And you totally ignored my observation about SPECTRAL composition of the solar insolation which also needs to be measured from space. More data IS REQUIRED.
Go ahead, Lucy, 'splain. (This should be good). Oh wait, that was your explanation. Yes more data is always good. But to suggest that we don't have enough solar data, well that's just not a good argument to make. We have more high quality solar data that we've ever had, far more than other types of data, in fact. To continue to make this argument that it is the sun that is the problem, particularly when it appears to be heading for a log-term minimum, is not just silly, it is unwarranted.
For you ---- I will.. The TSI values are different from the zero baseline "sunspot activity" proxy for TSI.. When you look at the SORCE/TIM curve (for example, back one page in PBear's post) you can see the cyclic 22 yr solar cycles superimposed on top of the increased baseline. It's the AVERAGE of that TSI over more than 300 yrs that has increased by 1.2W/m2 --- NOT the latest yearly value wrt to 1750. The IPCC IGNORED EVERYTHING ABOUT the long term trend and baseline to derive a number that is MINISCULE in comparison to the actual AVERAGE increase. They did this by using the LATEST YEARLY VALUE (which coincides with a relative low solar period of time). The cyclical solar cycle portion of the curve is a large percentage of the ABSOLUTE --- and that's how they lied.
The thermal mass and inertia of the Earth is too large to equalize to new temperature in a few years. We know that now since your climate heroes JUST NOW DISCOVERED that the earth STORES heat. (bless their slow uptake on that "discovery" 20 yrs into the debate and MUCH after they declared "the science is settled"
As for needing more data --- of course we do.. There were ever only 2 or 3 REAL TIME sat measurement packages and 2 of those are now defunct. And we never even got data over a COMPLETE solar cycle.. You cannot accurately measure TSI from the earth surface. Because the atmos you're trying to study is in the way.
And you totally ignored my observation about SPECTRAL composition of the solar insolation which also needs to be measured from space. More data IS REQUIRED.
Here is what you are conveniently ignoring:
For you ---- I will.. The TSI values are different from the zero baseline "sunspot activity" proxy for TSI.. When you look at the SORCE/TIM curve (for example, back one page in PBear's post) you can see the cyclic 22 yr solar cycles superimposed on top of the increased baseline. It's the AVERAGE of that TSI over more than 300 yrs that has increased by 1.2W/m2 --- NOT the latest yearly value wrt to 1750. The IPCC IGNORED EVERYTHING ABOUT the long term trend and baseline to derive a number that is MINISCULE in comparison to the actual AVERAGE increase. They did this by using the LATEST YEARLY VALUE (which coincides with a relative low solar period of time). The cyclical solar cycle portion of the curve is a large percentage of the ABSOLUTE --- and that's how they lied.
The thermal mass and inertia of the Earth is too large to equalize to new temperature in a few years. We know that now since your climate heroes JUST NOW DISCOVERED that the earth STORES heat. (bless their slow uptake on that "discovery" 20 yrs into the debate and MUCH after they declared "the science is settled"
As for needing more data --- of course we do.. There were ever only 2 or 3 REAL TIME sat measurement packages and 2 of those are now defunct. And we never even got data over a COMPLETE solar cycle.. You cannot accurately measure TSI from the earth surface. Because the atmos you're trying to study is in the way.
And you totally ignored my observation about SPECTRAL composition of the solar insolation which also needs to be measured from space. More data IS REQUIRED.
Here is what you are conveniently ignoring:
Don't throw skepticalscience shit at me.. At least pull that data from a refutable source.
I'm not ignoring anything.. In fact, I KNOW FOR CERTAIN, that the earth's climate system contains elements that virtually guarantee that the resulting temperature DOES NOT HAVE TO MATCH any particular input forcing function.. THe entire concept of looking for 2 curves that match is Sesame Street.
For example, Does your gas furnace get hotter the higher the thermo setting to outside temp ratio gets? Of course not.. The amount of additional heat/min stays the same. It just STAYS ON for longer. Any Linear system with an integral in it will CONTINUE TO RISE in response to an imbalance..
The climate models are tainted BECAUSE they expect the output shape to match the input forcing function shape. If you create a thermal imbalance by raising the source to a level that it is EXCESS to the thermal loss rates --- EVEN IF --- the input stalls and remains at that level --- the output temp curve will CONTINUE to increase.
Take another look at those curves you posted. WHEN did the TSI RISE and stall? About 35 or 40 years ago. You want a PLAUSIBLE explanation for the halt in observed surface temps? Whoooops ---- there it is.. Takes that long for a WHOLE GDam planet to reach a new thermal equilibrium. Only silly shit like AGW theory expects that to happen OVERNIGHT. Just so the output curve can be curve-fit to the input forcing function.
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?
Here is what you are conveniently ignoring:
Don't throw skepticalscience shit at me.. At least pull that data from a refutable source.
I'm not ignoring anything.. In fact, I KNOW FOR CERTAIN, that the earth's climate system contains elements that virtually guarantee that the resulting temperature DOES NOT HAVE TO MATCH any particular input forcing function.. THe entire concept of looking for 2 curves that match is Sesame Street.
For example, Does your gas furnace get hotter the higher the thermo setting to outside temp ratio gets? Of course not.. The amount of additional heat/min stays the same. It just STAYS ON for longer. Any Linear system with an integral in it will CONTINUE TO RISE in response to an imbalance..
The climate models are tainted BECAUSE they expect the output shape to match the input forcing function shape. If you create a thermal imbalance by raising the source to a level that it is EXCESS to the thermal loss rates --- EVEN IF --- the input stalls and remains at that level --- the output temp curve will CONTINUE to increase.
Take another look at those curves you posted. WHEN did the TSI RISE and stall? About 35 or 40 years ago. You want a PLAUSIBLE explanation for the halt in observed surface temps? Whoooops ---- there it is.. Takes that long for a WHOLE GDam planet to reach a new thermal equilibrium. Only silly shit like AGW theory expects that to happen OVERNIGHT. Just so the output curve can be curve-fit to the input forcing function.
Don't throw science, facts, at me. My mind was made up before, and I'm certainly not going to change it now. For any reason.
Don't throw skepticalscience shit at me.. At least pull that data from a refutable source.
I'm not ignoring anything.. In fact, I KNOW FOR CERTAIN, that the earth's climate system contains elements that virtually guarantee that the resulting temperature DOES NOT HAVE TO MATCH any particular input forcing function.. THe entire concept of looking for 2 curves that match is Sesame Street.
For example, Does your gas furnace get hotter the higher the thermo setting to outside temp ratio gets? Of course not.. The amount of additional heat/min stays the same. It just STAYS ON for longer. Any Linear system with an integral in it will CONTINUE TO RISE in response to an imbalance..
The climate models are tainted BECAUSE they expect the output shape to match the input forcing function shape. If you create a thermal imbalance by raising the source to a level that it is EXCESS to the thermal loss rates --- EVEN IF --- the input stalls and remains at that level --- the output temp curve will CONTINUE to increase.
Take another look at those curves you posted. WHEN did the TSI RISE and stall? About 35 or 40 years ago. You want a PLAUSIBLE explanation for the halt in observed surface temps? Whoooops ---- there it is.. Takes that long for a WHOLE GDam planet to reach a new thermal equilibrium. Only silly shit like AGW theory expects that to happen OVERNIGHT. Just so the output curve can be curve-fit to the input forcing function.
Don't throw science, facts, at me. My mind was made up before, and I'm certainly not going to change it now. For any reason.
Yes, we know. That's the problem with you anti-science deniers. No amount of scientific information will sway you from your quasi-religious faith.
Don't throw science, facts, at me. My mind was made up before, and I'm certainly not going to change it now. For any reason.
Yes, we know. That's the problem with you anti-science deniers. No amount of scientific information will sway you from your quasi-religious faith.
I assume that some day you will supply us with some science that shows some possibility that GHGs in the atmosphere have some effect other than AGW. That will win you the day.
Yes, we know. That's the problem with you anti-science deniers. No amount of scientific information will sway you from your quasi-religious faith.
I assume that some day you will supply us with some science that shows some possibility that GHGs in the atmosphere have some effect other than AGW. That will win you the day.
I don't have to. It's YOU that has to prove your case. That's how science works. Your total and complete, abject, failure is why you are trying to recast the null hypothesis method (like right now) which you are failing at. Like everything else you clowns try to do.
You even get THAT wrong. That's what the AGW cult is trying to do.And you're a perfect idiot. Trying to solve science problems with politics.
Ridiculous.
The IPCC pretty much invented climate science. Fox propaganda pretty much invented denialism. I know which side I'm on.
No, it's not a red herring. It's what you said.So...you don't give a shit if the models are accurate, as long as they give you the answer you want.Why would they need to? We have at least a dozen proxies and other direct and indirect methods for making past temperature determinations.
Red herring.
Tell me more about how you love science.
Gee, another red herring. Want some tartar sauce with that?
I proved my claim. You responded with "Nuh-UH!!"If you had something to refute the claims that the models are inaccurate, you'd present it.The fact that you believe that someone is winning and someone is losing demonstrates your level of immaturity by believing this to be nothing but a game. Oh dear.
You haven't. So you don't. And I know this will come as a shock to you, but your say-so is not compelling.
Bring something, or STFU. It's that simple.
It isn't my job to refute your claims. It is your job to convince me that your claims have any merit. And so far all I've seen from you is a lot of redneck bravado and not a lot of documentation.
Bless your heart.All a bunch of crap. A giant red herring. There is only one significant change going on that we can do something about. Atmospheric GHG concentrations. It restricts OLR, creating energy imbalance for planet earth. There is only one possible response. Warming. Warming until OLR balances incoming solar.
Everything else is bullshit.
I proved my claim. You responded with "Nuh-UH!!"If you had something to refute the claims that the models are inaccurate, you'd present it.
You haven't. So you don't. And I know this will come as a shock to you, but your say-so is not compelling.
Bring something, or STFU. It's that simple.
It isn't my job to refute your claims. It is your job to convince me that your claims have any merit. And so far all I've seen from you is a lot of redneck bravado and not a lot of documentation.
That don't cut it. My claim stands.
I proved my claim. You responded with "Nuh-UH!!"It isn't my job to refute your claims. It is your job to convince me that your claims have any merit. And so far all I've seen from you is a lot of redneck bravado and not a lot of documentation.
That don't cut it. My claim stands.
The only thing you've proven is your own desperation.
Deniers are going to deny until modeling can precisely emulate weather everywhere on earth for many years ahead and many past.
Of course by then mankind will have moved on from fossil fuel use and the climate will be whatever those final decades of use have created. In other words way too late.
That's why even discussions of climate science with deniers of it is a waste of time.
They are incapable of understanding it and prefer their mythology.
No... I disagree. I think they are perfectly capable of understanding it (at least most of them). I am convinced that they CHOOSE to go with their falsehoods.
