Scientist discovers errors in global warming model

[jon_berzerk]

just checked


the facts are in


the globe has warmed up and human activities have contributed to it

Now you must show how much man has contributed. You must show how and where the contributions came from and how it has affected the atmosphere.

Please show your work to include the math, methodology, and data..

I think you just went off your meds again or they are wearing off and you are late for the next dose

My work? Dante has never claimed to be a scientist and Dante has never argued the science of climate change with anyone, let alone a non scientist kook like you

NASA NOAA and other agencies are doing work on things. I trust them over you. I guess that makes me a dupe and a part of a conspiracy

That's called FAITH/ a religion retard.

We want facts and data, you just want to BELIEVE...

and the Gospel is spread with fudged climate models

 

[frigidweirdo]

What is this? Climate change primary school edition?


Who is saying climate change hasn't happened in the past? No one, not a single person. So why are you trying to make a point as if people have said this?

There are two things.

Climate change and MAN MADE climate change. You see the difference?

One is natural, the Earth goes through phases. What happens happens. However with man made climate change we can't say what the impact might be....

if man can impact the climate like you say

then there is no need for natures "what happens happens"

Why?

We can impact, we just can't control.

--LOL

I ask why, you say "LOL", is that why? Really?

if you can change it by accident

you can change it on purpose

if you cant

why the fuck bother with this global warming nonsense

Er.... if you can change it by accident, yes, you can change it on purpose, assuming you have all the right ingredients.

However there is change without knowing the consequences and there is change knowing the consequences. If we change the climate, we don't know the consequences of these actions, which is EXACTLY what is happening right now.

Scientists don't KNOW the actual result of man made climate change. They believe it will be bad, but don't know how bad.

You on the other hand don't care for the consequences. You stick your head in the sand and say "well, I don't know, so I won't do anything".

You're like a man on a desert island who sees that it's not raining today, so assumes it will never rain.

 

[jon_berzerk]

if man can impact the climate like you say

then there is no need for natures "what happens happens"

Why?

We can impact, we just can't control.

--LOL

I ask why, you say "LOL", is that why? Really?

if you can change it by accident

you can change it on purpose

if you cant

why the fuck bother with this global warming nonsense

Er.... if you can change it by accident, yes, you can change it on purpose, assuming you have all the right ingredients.

However there is change without knowing the consequences and there is change knowing the consequences. If we change the climate, we don't know the consequences of these actions, which is EXACTLY what is happening right now.

Scientists don't KNOW the actual result of man made climate change. They believe it will be bad, but don't know how bad.

You on the other hand don't care for the consequences. You stick your head in the sand and say "well, I don't know, so I won't do anything".

You're like a man on a desert island who sees that it's not raining today, so assumes it will never rain.

so as bear says it is faith based

 

[frigidweirdo]

Check your smart-watch. This interglacial is already longer than 2 of the previous three.. Time's a'wasting.
Good news is -- spewing A LOT of CO2 might just help a few people in the higher latitudes survive the next glacial period..

Animal and plant life have always thrived during times of high CO2 levels and warm climates. Lush tropical climates are perfect for life. It's only when climates turn cold & dry, that life struggles to survive. 'Global Warming' will not spell the end of humanity. In fact, humanity will likely thrive.

Actually if you look at say, the great empires, what we see is a decline when things get too hot.

The Egyptians were followed by the Greeks and then the Romans. As things changed so too did the areas able to sustain great empires.

Are equatorial countries at the top of the GDP pile? No, in fact it is mostly countries in milder climates, Europe, China, Japan, North America, etc.

Excellent point, a number of civilizations have collapsed due to climate change. None of which were triggered by mankind.

What is this? Climate change primary school edition?


Who is saying climate change hasn't happened in the past? No one, not a single person. So why are you trying to make a point as if people have said this?

There are two things.

Climate change and MAN MADE climate change. You see the difference?

One is natural, the Earth goes through phases. What happens happens. However with man made climate change we can't say what the impact might be....

A. Who says today's climate is optimum? Alarmists. Yet the fact is a much warmer climate is optimum for life.
B. Who says mankind controls the climate? Alarmists. Yet the fact remains man does not control the weather.
C. Ice Ages coming and going are attributed to earth wobble and solar fluctuations. Guess what two variables are missing from every alarmist computer model.

A) It's not about optimum climate.
B) No one says we control the climate as far as I'm aware.
C) Ice ages coming and going isn't an issue here.

So, three points which all ignore the reality of what this is about.

We're changing the climate and we don't know the impact this will have. We're playing russian roulette with pollution.

You like playing russian roulette?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Why?

We can impact, we just can't control.

--LOL

I ask why, you say "LOL", is that why? Really?

if you can change it by accident

you can change it on purpose

if you cant

why the fuck bother with this global warming nonsense

Er.... if you can change it by accident, yes, you can change it on purpose, assuming you have all the right ingredients.

However there is change without knowing the consequences and there is change knowing the consequences. If we change the climate, we don't know the consequences of these actions, which is EXACTLY what is happening right now.

Scientists don't KNOW the actual result of man made climate change. They believe it will be bad, but don't know how bad.

You on the other hand don't care for the consequences. You stick your head in the sand and say "well, I don't know, so I won't do anything".

You're like a man on a desert island who sees that it's not raining today, so assumes it will never rain.

so as bear says it is faith based

Not faith based. Mostly it's based on educated guesses. The Bible isn't an educated guess in any way.

It's also based on the fact that we know that we can't control things and often we see man made things causing problems that we can't reverse later on. Like the bees situation.

 

[jon_berzerk]

--LOL

I ask why, you say "LOL", is that why? Really?

if you can change it by accident

you can change it on purpose

if you cant

why the fuck bother with this global warming nonsense

Er.... if you can change it by accident, yes, you can change it on purpose, assuming you have all the right ingredients.

However there is change without knowing the consequences and there is change knowing the consequences. If we change the climate, we don't know the consequences of these actions, which is EXACTLY what is happening right now.

Scientists don't KNOW the actual result of man made climate change. They believe it will be bad, but don't know how bad.

You on the other hand don't care for the consequences. You stick your head in the sand and say "well, I don't know, so I won't do anything".

You're like a man on a desert island who sees that it's not raining today, so assumes it will never rain.

so as bear says it is faith based

Not faith based. Mostly it's based on educated guesses. The Bible isn't an educated guess in any way.

It's also based on the fact that we know that we can't control things and often we see man made things causing problems that we can't reverse later on. Like the bees situation.

those educated guesses have been way off the mark

almost as if they had been intended to scare the weak minded into believing it

 

[frigidweirdo]

I ask why, you say "LOL", is that why? Really?

if you can change it by accident

you can change it on purpose

if you cant

why the fuck bother with this global warming nonsense

Er.... if you can change it by accident, yes, you can change it on purpose, assuming you have all the right ingredients.

However there is change without knowing the consequences and there is change knowing the consequences. If we change the climate, we don't know the consequences of these actions, which is EXACTLY what is happening right now.

Scientists don't KNOW the actual result of man made climate change. They believe it will be bad, but don't know how bad.

You on the other hand don't care for the consequences. You stick your head in the sand and say "well, I don't know, so I won't do anything".

You're like a man on a desert island who sees that it's not raining today, so assumes it will never rain.

so as bear says it is faith based

Not faith based. Mostly it's based on educated guesses. The Bible isn't an educated guess in any way.

It's also based on the fact that we know that we can't control things and often we see man made things causing problems that we can't reverse later on. Like the bees situation.

those educated guesses have been way off the mark

almost as if they had been intended to scare the weak minded into believing it

But closer to the mark than those people who say nothing is happening.

What we have here is this situation. People making educated guesses with available data and not being able to get 00% accuracy for obvious reasons and people sitting back saying "we shouldn't do anything because they can't get 100% accuracy".

You tell me what will happen in the future. You don't know. You're merely saying that predictions might not be accurate. Does it matter? They might not be accurate, but you can bet if something goes wrong we're screwed.

You don't want to do anything on the off chance that the "if" won't happen?

You wouldn't build a tornado shelter because there might not be a tornado?

Whether weak people are scared or not is neither here nor there. Do you BELIEVE that in 50 years time everything will still be okay?

 

[flacaltenn]

just checked


the facts are in


the globe has warmed up and human activities have contributed to it

That's true.. And I don't disagree -- but that is NOT the constant dramatic hysteria that is being constantly churned out. The lies and misrepresentations about this little warming blip being unprecendented in thousands of years. Or your compadre Nat who was told that GW caused the war in Syria.. Or your Prez who tells the Coast Guard cadets that Global Warming is among their most important missions.

What you said is NOT what the GW theory is about. Your theory states that man's emissions are just the TRIGGER for Earth to launch into an irreparable suicide spin.. All those imagined multipliers to the actual warming power of CO2 are just speculation. That's how they take a relatively small effect of CO2 and EXPAND that into a doomsday crisis.

Man-made emissions -- by themselves --- are not capable of DIRECTLY warming the planet to the degree that GW has speculated. All that additional warming comes from speculated feedback loops in the climate system. This speculation from the folks who only recently discovered that the oceans are MASSIVE storage of the increased GreenHouse heating. Thus REMOVING it from the atmospheric thermal exchanges..

Now how on earth do the oceans being warmer remove them from the atmospheric thermal exchanges? What are the El Nino and La Nina affects? And the melting of the sea ice in the Arctic is primarily an effect of a warming ocean. And effect whose affect on the jet stream has already been documented. That is a rather strong exchange with the atmosphere. And then the warming of the oceans serves as a driver of tropical storms, of which the Pacific basin has just had a record number, is that not a rather strong thermal exchange between the ocean and atmosphere?

When you're talking about uptake of atmospheric heat into the oceans -- you can't double-book the effect. If you SEE increasing amounts of thermal energy at depth -- It means the oceans are SOMEHOW (not yet understood) sinking that heat to 700m and beyond. So all that heat was TAKEN FROM the atmos. cycle and removed from the GreenHouse exchanges. Or don't you understand the "ocean's ate my GW excuse"?? When you get El Ninos and high pts of AMOs and such -- some of that heat is put back into the atmos.

From the NOAA data -- the oceans have been warming at a pretty small but constant rate since we had the ability to measure them globally. If only climate science would quit this silly "global" business for every study and learn how ONE ocean actually works -- they'd be much farther ahead and wasted less money..

 

[flacaltenn]

flacaltenn

just checked


the facts are in


the globe has warmed up and human activities have contributed to it

That's true.. And I don't disagree -- but that is NOT the constant dramatic hysteria that is being constantly churned out. The lies and misrepresentations about this little warming blip being unprecendented in thousands of years. Or your compadre Nat who was told that GW caused the war in Syria.. Or your Prez who tells the Coast Guard cadets that Global Warming is among their most important missions.

What you said is NOT what the GW theory is about. Your theory states that man's emissions are just the TRIGGER for Earth to launch into an irreparable suicide spin.. All those imagined multipliers to the actual warming power of CO2 are just speculation. That's how they take a relatively small effect of CO2 and EXPAND that into a doomsday crisis.

Man-made emissions -- by themselves --- are not capable of DIRECTLY warming the planet to the degree that GW has speculated. All that additional warming comes from speculated feedback loops in the climate system. This speculation from the folks who only recently discovered that the oceans are MASSIVE storage of the increased GreenHouse heating. Thus REMOVING it from the atmospheric thermal exchanges..

Everything before your but is intelligent, but I am not sure that is by design

after you but it is all ideological. Dante does NOT argue the science with non scientists and especially with non climate scientists. As a matter of principle Dante has never to my knowledge ever argued the science. Stating what the consensus within the scientific community is on the science is not arguing the scientific details nor is it arguing that there is a consensus method that verifies scientific data

Lemme make this perfectly clear -- because I KNOW you can only comprehend IDEOLOGICAL.. NOTHING I said after the "But" was ideological. It was all fact and trackable science. You wouldn't recognize it if it had a picture of Mr Wizard on it...

You've evidently wasted a shitload of your life arguing a consensus that never existed. You would have been better off reading the science and not having ideologues spoon feed you the propaganda..

 

[flacaltenn]

Doesn't HAVE to be a Climate scientist. Climate science is a multidisciplinary field. They need physicists, statisticians, modeling experts, geologists, botanists, oceanographers, space systems people, etc Literally DOZENS of specialties involved. So happens -- Evans is a specialist in systems modeling and mathematics. Something that MOST ALL climate scientists aren't really required to study.. Which could explain why those early "climate models" are failing so badly...

Evans is a blogger.

When and if his 'stuff' gets peer reviewed it is just bullshit

Really troll??? Why don't you look up his curriculum vitae. I doubt you'd understand most of it..

 

[flacaltenn]

Actually, many currently believe the earth is about to enter a cooling cycle. But regardless, Global Warming/Global Cooling? We'll survive... Or we won't.

No not really. Most believe we have just started the interglacial period which will last for thousands of years.

Adapt or die.

Bring on the warmth. I can handle it. I ain't afraid of no Global Warming Boogeyman.

Until it starts killing too many people, then....

until what does that? Let's see some evidence of something you fear here.

You mean, you want evidence of what will happen in the future? You know that's impossible right?

Not if you CLAIM you can calculate the process and produce a model that accurately predicts the process.
We do that all the time. That's how you accurately guide a spacecraft to land on Mars. Or design an aerodynamics package for a race car. That's what the GW meisters CLAIM they have developed by their relatively crude understanding of the Earth's climate system. And instead of making progress in understanding all of the nuisances, we've squandered time and money by focusing only on the effects of man's emissions. We STILL really don't understand the cyclical nature or variabilities in the Sun's primary role or the way that heat is distributed in the oceans and the atmosphere.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

bear513

NASA NOAA and other agencies are doing work on things. I trust them over you. I guess that makes me a dupe and a part of a conspiracy

That's called FAITH/ a religion retard.

We want facts and data, you just want to BELIEVE...

Faith?

There is no faith or belief on this stupid.

I'm sorry, this bear poster is just too stupid... I can't finish a reply

 

[flacaltenn]

Animal and plant life have always thrived during times of high CO2 levels and warm climates. Lush tropical climates are perfect for life. It's only when climates turn cold & dry, that life struggles to survive. 'Global Warming' will not spell the end of humanity. In fact, humanity will likely thrive.

Actually if you look at say, the great empires, what we see is a decline when things get too hot.

The Egyptians were followed by the Greeks and then the Romans. As things changed so too did the areas able to sustain great empires.

Are equatorial countries at the top of the GDP pile? No, in fact it is mostly countries in milder climates, Europe, China, Japan, North America, etc.

Excellent point, a number of civilizations have collapsed due to climate change. None of which were triggered by mankind.

What is this? Climate change primary school edition?


Who is saying climate change hasn't happened in the past? No one, not a single person. So why are you trying to make a point as if people have said this?

There are two things.

Climate change and MAN MADE climate change. You see the difference?

One is natural, the Earth goes through phases. What happens happens. However with man made climate change we can't say what the impact might be....

if man can impact the climate like you say

then there is no need for natures "what happens happens"

Why?

We can impact, we just can't control.

We do probably impact the climate a bit. And if you know the cause -- it MIGHT be preventable. CO2 has a diminishing effect on the GreenHouse. For every degree in temperature you get from increases in temperature -- you need TWICE as much CO2 to get the next degree. And water vapor is by far the LARGEST GHouse gas contributor. The GW theory states that man-made emissions are just the "trigger" to a runaway GH effect. That's the part of GW that is hotly debated and certainly not settled.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Really troll??? Why don't you look up his curriculum vitae. I doubt you'd understand most of it..

Troll? You fit that definition very well yourself. seriously

The man's posts on his wife's blog are NOT science. The day he has something peer reviewed on climate science I will listen to him

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Lemme make this perfectly clear -- because I KNOW you can only comprehend IDEOLOGICAL.. NOTHING I said after the "But" was ideological. It was all fact and trackable science. You wouldn't recognize it if it had a picture of Mr Wizard on it...

You've evidently wasted a shitload of your life arguing a consensus that never existed. You would have been better off reading the science and not having ideologues spoon feed you the propaganda..

after your but

The lies and misrepresentations about this little warming blip being unprecendented in thousands of years. Or your compadre Nat who was told that GW caused the war in Syria.. Or your Prez who tells the Coast Guard cadets that Global Warming is among their most important missions.​

 

[flacaltenn]

just checked


the facts are in


the globe has warmed up and human activities have contributed to it

Now you must show how much man has contributed. You must show how and where the contributions came from and how it has affected the atmosphere.

Please show your work to include the math, methodology, and data..

I think you just went off your meds again or they are wearing off and you are late for the next dose

My work? Dante has never claimed to be a scientist and Dante has never argued the science of climate change with anyone, let alone a non scientist kook like you

NASA NOAA and other agencies are doing work on things. I trust them over you. I guess that makes me a dupe and a part of a conspiracy

Actually it does make you a dupe and an accessory to to conspiracy. NASA/NOAA have become a major propaganda organ on the topic.. Led by politically activists like James Hansen who has talked about the boiling of the oceans and "coal trains of death".. What they release for public consumption are half-truths and in cases -- largely fabricated news releases to grab headlines. They have many times recently retracted bold headlines about "warmest months" and "warmest years" weeks after dupes like you have consumed the lies.

 

[flacaltenn]

Scientist discovers errors in global warming model

holy crap say it aint so

--LOL

what are those flateartherwarmists going to do now

--LOL

You understand that we can only predict the future right? Models are made with the data that exists, and people try to say what might happen. But it's what it is. It's not what WILL happen. But what could happen.

However making educated guesses is far better than saying "well, we can't predict the future so let's not bother." We still have weather forecasts, we don't say we can't predict the weather with 100% certainty, so let's not bother, do we?

the models have not been accurate as of yet

the predictions made even more hilarious

Really? They said we'd get warmer, we're getting warmer.

What they said was to expect ACCELERATED warming in the range of 4 to 8degC per century. Our average rate of warming over the last 30 years has been about 1.5degC per century and DROPPING every year since 2000.

No acceleration means a general failure of the FULL theory of GWarming..

 

[jon_berzerk]

if you can change it by accident

you can change it on purpose

if you cant

why the fuck bother with this global warming nonsense

Er.... if you can change it by accident, yes, you can change it on purpose, assuming you have all the right ingredients.

However there is change without knowing the consequences and there is change knowing the consequences. If we change the climate, we don't know the consequences of these actions, which is EXACTLY what is happening right now.

Scientists don't KNOW the actual result of man made climate change. They believe it will be bad, but don't know how bad.

You on the other hand don't care for the consequences. You stick your head in the sand and say "well, I don't know, so I won't do anything".

You're like a man on a desert island who sees that it's not raining today, so assumes it will never rain.

so as bear says it is faith based

Not faith based. Mostly it's based on educated guesses. The Bible isn't an educated guess in any way.

It's also based on the fact that we know that we can't control things and often we see man made things causing problems that we can't reverse later on. Like the bees situation.

those educated guesses have been way off the mark

almost as if they had been intended to scare the weak minded into believing it

But closer to the mark than those people who say nothing is happening.

What we have here is this situation. People making educated guesses with available data and not being able to get 00% accuracy for obvious reasons and people sitting back saying "we shouldn't do anything because they can't get 100% accuracy".

You tell me what will happen in the future. You don't know. You're merely saying that predictions might not be accurate. Does it matter? They might not be accurate, but you can bet if something goes wrong we're screwed.

You don't want to do anything on the off chance that the "if" won't happen?

You wouldn't build a tornado shelter because there might not be a tornado?

Whether weak people are scared or not is neither here nor there. Do you BELIEVE that in 50 years time everything will still be okay?

they have not been close to any mark

they have been wildly inaccurate

 

[flacaltenn]

--LOL

I ask why, you say "LOL", is that why? Really?

if you can change it by accident

you can change it on purpose

if you cant

why the fuck bother with this global warming nonsense

Er.... if you can change it by accident, yes, you can change it on purpose, assuming you have all the right ingredients.

However there is change without knowing the consequences and there is change knowing the consequences. If we change the climate, we don't know the consequences of these actions, which is EXACTLY what is happening right now.

Scientists don't KNOW the actual result of man made climate change. They believe it will be bad, but don't know how bad.

You on the other hand don't care for the consequences. You stick your head in the sand and say "well, I don't know, so I won't do anything".

You're like a man on a desert island who sees that it's not raining today, so assumes it will never rain.

so as bear says it is faith based

Not faith based. Mostly it's based on educated guesses. The Bible isn't an educated guess in any way.

It's also based on the fact that we know that we can't control things and often we see man made things causing problems that we can't reverse later on. Like the bees situation.

The bees situation is looking more and more like a man-caused accident. And it if it's the improper use of pesticides -- it WOULD be reversible.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Actually if you look at say, the great empires, what we see is a decline when things get too hot.

The Egyptians were followed by the Greeks and then the Romans. As things changed so too did the areas able to sustain great empires.

Are equatorial countries at the top of the GDP pile? No, in fact it is mostly countries in milder climates, Europe, China, Japan, North America, etc.

Excellent point, a number of civilizations have collapsed due to climate change. None of which were triggered by mankind.

What is this? Climate change primary school edition?


Who is saying climate change hasn't happened in the past? No one, not a single person. So why are you trying to make a point as if people have said this?

There are two things.

Climate change and MAN MADE climate change. You see the difference?

One is natural, the Earth goes through phases. What happens happens. However with man made climate change we can't say what the impact might be....

if man can impact the climate like you say

then there is no need for natures "what happens happens"

Why?

We can impact, we just can't control.

We do probably impact the climate a bit. And if you know the cause -- it MIGHT be preventable. CO2 has a diminishing effect on the GreenHouse. For every degree in temperature you get from increases in temperature -- you need TWICE as much CO2 to get the next degree. And water vapor is by far the LARGEST GHouse gas contributor. The GW theory states that man-made emissions are just the "trigger" to a runaway GH effect. That's the part of GW that is hotly debated and certainly not settled.​

The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.​

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence NASA

One of the most vigorously debated topics on Earth is the issue of climate change, and the National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS) data centers are central to answering some of the most pressing global change questions that remain unresolved. The National Centers for Environmental Information contains the instrumental and paleoclimatic records that can precisely define the nature of climatic fluctuations at time scales of a century and longer. Among the diverse kinds of data platforms whose data contribute to NCEI's resources are: Ships, buoys, weather stations, weather balloons, satellites, radar and many climate proxy records such as tree rings and ice cores.

The National Oceanographic Data Center contains the subsurface ocean data which reveal the ways that heat is distributed and redistributed over the planet. Knowing how these systems are changing and how they have changed in the past is crucial to understanding how they will change in the future. And, for climate information that extends from hundreds to thousands of years, paleoclimatology data, also available from the National Centers for Environmental Information, helps to provide longer term perspectives.​

Introduction: Global Warming | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)


Frequently Asked Questions: Frequently Asked Questions | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)