Scientist discovers errors in global warming model

[gtopa1]

You're the one with the anti science philosophy. You wish to absolutely squelch discussion of the subject. That is as anti science as you can get.

Now you sound exactly like CODE PINK



Dante cannot squelch scientific discussion, He can only post what science has agreed upon, and that is that the field of climate science is where to loo for global warming data and theories. There exists within tthe WORLDWIDE scientific community, a consensus on global warming

your blogger is worse than an outlier, he is demented

Tell us about the scientific method dainty. Use your words or use those of wiki, I don't care. But after you have posted up the scientific method please show us anywhere where it says that first off science is ever settled, and secondly how scientific discussion is to be denied.

I'll wait.

POPPER IS MY HERO!!!

Greg

 

[westwall]

Yeah? So? They are logic fails that are relied on by people incapable of defending their position through lack of facts.
Congrats, you're a moron.

"An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true.

Fallacy: Appeal to Authority

There is no appeal. Reporting what the climate science scientists say is a fallacy to you?

"97% CONSENSUS" ring a bell? I know it's hard for a mental midget such as yourself to understand simple English but I laid it out for you as obviously as I could.

 

[westwall]

Unlike you who refer to yourself in the third person because of your lack of intellect and profound insecurity, I actually am a scientist, and have been, for longer than you have no doubt been alive.

Bob Dole?

and I once knew somebody who had been a scientist in the US Space Program...

...back in the 1960s. They would no more claim to be a space expert 50 - 60 years later than you should claim to be some sort of expert in whatever scientific field you would claim.

You're NOT a climate scientist, so it is you who are appealing to a false authority

I am a scientist and have been one for over 40 years. I am not relying on authority to defend my position. I am using the SCIENTIFIC METHOD to do so. You should look it up. I realize that the SM destroys your appeals to authority, and your scientific consensus bullshit, but the scientific method is what sets scientists apart from religious evangelists.

westwall claims to be an authority on science -- he's a scientist -- westwall makes claims that other scientists with no training in climate science have more authority when speaking on climate science than climate scientists do -- this is true because after all westwall is a scientist

1. Therefore, C is true.

Fallacy: Appeal to Authority

No, I claim that the scientific method and the proper following of it, demonstrates the utter failure of the warmists to support their claims. They claim that CO2 drives temperatures. Show us. Yes, we all know that CO2 is a GHG. But there is no empirical data whatsoever that shows it has any effect on the global temperature.

None.

YOU have made the claim.

So, prove it.

 

[gtopa1]

Yeah? So? They are logic fails that are relied on by people incapable of defending their position through lack of facts.
Congrats, you're a moron.

"An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true.

Fallacy: Appeal to Authority

There is no appeal. Reporting what the climate science scientists say is a fallacy to you?

That only depends on if you are lying about what the Scientists actually say and then infer "the end is nigh" bullshit!!

Yep: you're a liar and a fraud!!

Greg

 

[westwall]

Government funded university research often brings out the greed rather than the truth.

Often? How often? What has that to do with NASA and other scientific organizations?

Yet another appeal to authority. The Church used to say that Galileo was wrong. They had a 97% consensus on that too. The same with Copernicus, and Darwin etc. It is always the religious freaks who demand that no one question their dogma, and threaten those who do, with violence.

 

[Flopper]

"A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.

He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model is correct, it had been applied incorrectly.

He has fixed two errors and the new corrected model finds the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought.

It turns out the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has over-estimated future global warming by as much as 10 times, he says.

“Yes, CO2 has an effect, but it’s about a fifth or tenth of what the IPCC says it is. CO2 is not driving the climate; it caused less than 20 per cent of the global warming in the last few decades”.

CO2 is not causing global warming.



Read more: Australian scientist discovers ERRORS in Global Warming models that COMPLETELY undermine climate theory!!! » The Right Scoop -

Once you weed through the considerable empty and inflammatory rhetoric in Evans' opinion article, the meat consists of a number of long-debunked myths and gross misunderstandings of basic climate science. Evans' article is the "skeptic" equivalent of eating red hot candies: not much substance, empty calories, but it gets the blood boiling!

David Evans' Understanding of the Climate Goes Cold

 

[gtopa1]

Unlike you who refer to yourself in the third person because of your lack of intellect and profound insecurity, I actually am a scientist, and have been, for longer than you have no doubt been alive.

Bob Dole?

and I once knew somebody who had been a scientist in the US Space Program...

...back in the 1960s. They would no more claim to be a space expert 50 - 60 years later than you should claim to be some sort of expert in whatever scientific field you would claim.

You're NOT a climate scientist, so it is you who are appealing to a false authority

I am a scientist and have been one for over 40 years. I am not relying on authority to defend my position. I am using the SCIENTIFIC METHOD to do so. You should look it up. I realize that the SM destroys your appeals to authority, and your scientific consensus bullshit, but the scientific method is what sets scientists apart from religious evangelists.

westwall claims to be an authority on science -- he's a scientist -- westwall makes claims that other scientists with no training in climate science have more authority when speaking on climate science than climate scientists do -- this is true because after all westwall is a scientist

1. Therefore, C is true.

Fallacy: Appeal to Authority

No, I claim that the scientific method and the proper following of it, demonstrates the utter failure of the warmists to support their claims. They claim that CO2 drives temperatures. Show us. Yes, we all know that CO2 is a GHG. But there is no empirical data whatsoever that shows it has any effect on the global temperature.

None.

YOU have made the claim.

So, prove it.

I am willing to concede that there may be a MINOR contribution, but I do wish they wouldn't adjust the Historical record to show it as being much higher. I hate lying scum!!!

Greg

 

[westwall]

Unlike you who refer to yourself in the third person because of your lack of intellect and profound insecurity, I actually am a scientist, and have been, for longer than you have no doubt been alive.

Bob Dole?

and I once knew somebody who had been a scientist in the US Space Program...

...back in the 1960s. They would no more claim to be a space expert 50 - 60 years later than you should claim to be some sort of expert in whatever scientific field you would claim.

You're NOT a climate scientist, so it is you who are appealing to a false authority

I am a scientist and have been one for over 40 years. I am not relying on authority to defend my position. I am using the SCIENTIFIC METHOD to do so. You should look it up. I realize that the SM destroys your appeals to authority, and your scientific consensus bullshit, but the scientific method is what sets scientists apart from religious evangelists.

westwall claims to be an authority on science -- he's a scientist -- westwall makes claims that other scientists with no training in climate science have more authority when speaking on climate science than climate scientists do -- this is true because after all westwall is a scientist

1. Therefore, C is true.

Fallacy: Appeal to Authority

No, I claim that the scientific method and the proper following of it, demonstrates the utter failure of the warmists to support their claims. They claim that CO2 drives temperatures. Show us. Yes, we all know that CO2 is a GHG. But there is no empirical data whatsoever that shows it has any effect on the global temperature.

None.

YOU have made the claim.

So, prove it.

I am willing to concede that there may be a MINOR contribution, but I do wish they wouldn't adjust the Historical record to show it as being much higher. I hate lying scum!!!

Greg

CO2's contribution is so faint that it's signal is totally absorbed by the water vapor signal. If the Earth had no water vapor then the CO2 that we have might be able to raise the global temp from -278 to -277. Might. But as the Earth is gifted with water vapor in abundance the CO2 effect is completely wiped out by the thermal blanket effect the water gives us.

 

[gtopa1]

Government funded university research often brings out the greed rather than the truth.

Often? How often? What has that to do with NASA and other scientific organizations?

Yet another appeal to authority. The Church used to say that Galileo was wrong. They had a 97% consensus on that too. The same with Copernicus, and Darwin etc. It is always the religious freaks who demand that no one question their dogma, and threaten those who do, with violence.

To be fair to the Church they DID ask Galileo to present his ideas and show his maths. But it took a lot to change their view and rightly so; it took PEER REVIEW to eventually change their stance. The cultists today are DOGMATIC ABOUT IT!!

The Roman Catholic Church convicted him of breaking his agreement of 1616 and of teaching the Copernican theory as a truth and not a hypothesis.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/galileo.html

Actually the Church was quite correct. We now know of course that even Galileo was "wrong" as the Sun is NOT the Centre of the Universe; only of the Solar System. The mockers won't get it of course...but whenever they claim a "TRUTH" they are actually quite wrong. In fact I doubt that the mockers have any clue at all.

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

Bob Dole?

and I once knew somebody who had been a scientist in the US Space Program...

...back in the 1960s. They would no more claim to be a space expert 50 - 60 years later than you should claim to be some sort of expert in whatever scientific field you would claim.

You're NOT a climate scientist, so it is you who are appealing to a false authority

I am a scientist and have been one for over 40 years. I am not relying on authority to defend my position. I am using the SCIENTIFIC METHOD to do so. You should look it up. I realize that the SM destroys your appeals to authority, and your scientific consensus bullshit, but the scientific method is what sets scientists apart from religious evangelists.

westwall claims to be an authority on science -- he's a scientist -- westwall makes claims that other scientists with no training in climate science have more authority when speaking on climate science than climate scientists do -- this is true because after all westwall is a scientist

1. Therefore, C is true.

Fallacy: Appeal to Authority

No, I claim that the scientific method and the proper following of it, demonstrates the utter failure of the warmists to support their claims. They claim that CO2 drives temperatures. Show us. Yes, we all know that CO2 is a GHG. But there is no empirical data whatsoever that shows it has any effect on the global temperature.

None.

YOU have made the claim.

So, prove it.

I am willing to concede that there may be a MINOR contribution, but I do wish they wouldn't adjust the Historical record to show it as being much higher. I hate lying scum!!!

Greg

CO2's contribution is so faint that it's signal is totally absorbed by the water vapor signal. If the Earth had no water vapor then the CO2 that we have might be able to raise the global temp from -278 to -277. Might. But as the Earth is gifted with water vapor in abundance the CO2 effect is completely wiped out by the thermal blanket effect the water gives us.

And that is the point. They remind me of someone going to the beach at low tide and then running screaming to the town nearby that they are about to be destroyed because "the waters are upon them". lol

Greg

 

[Rustic]

So a scientist -- discovers this?

So the scientific community has NOT been lying if this news is taken to be credible. It only means science was incorrect and gets corrected as time goes on? Wow!

Science at work? What will the right wing denier nuts do now, embrace science and scientists? Nah, they'll talk about Al Gore and other shit

They make it up as they go... One guess is as good as the next.

Florida was supposed to be under water by now... According to the foremost climate scientist, algore

Hashtag pseudoscience

really? Al Gore predicted that? Hmm... under what circumstances and in what context?

could it have anything to do with scientists and others being asked what they could see happening in 15 to 20 years if nothing changes...As global temperatures rise," when they speculated that warming may cause the massive West Antarctic Ice Sheet to slip more rapidly?

what about theories that
if ice in the polar regions were to melt, the seas will rise dramatically and the results will be calamitous…If this worst-case scenario should occur, in the coming centuries major cities could be abandoned scientists speculated what it could all mean?

None of these seem like scientists as end of the world yahoos. Sounds more like yahoos like you were first frightened by headlines while you totally ignored the conversation

I just don't believe in pseudoscience...

Embrace the suck

 

[westwall]

Government funded university research often brings out the greed rather than the truth.

Often? How often? What has that to do with NASA and other scientific organizations?

Yet another appeal to authority. The Church used to say that Galileo was wrong. They had a 97% consensus on that too. The same with Copernicus, and Darwin etc. It is always the religious freaks who demand that no one question their dogma, and threaten those who do, with violence.

To be fair to the Church they DID ask Galileo to present his ideas and show his maths. But it took a lot to change their view and rightly so; it took PEER REVIEW to eventually change their stance. The cultists today are DOGMATIC ABOUT IT!!

The Roman Catholic Church convicted him of breaking his agreement of 1616 and of teaching the Copernican theory as a truth and not a hypothesis.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/galileo.html

Actually the Church was quite correct. We now know of course that even Galileo was "wrong" as the Sun is NOT the Centre of the Universe; only of the Solar System. The mockers won't get it of course...but whenever they claim a "TRUTH" they are actually quite wrong. In fact I doubt that the mockers have any clue at all.

Greg

That is correct. Science doesn't concern itself with 'truth'. Truth is for the religious philosophers to discuss. Science is only concerned with facts and observation of the physical world and the recording of those observations. Any scientist who brings morality into a scientific discussion has left science behind and entered into the realm of theology.

 

[Rustic]

To be a good "climate scientist"(wait, is that even a legitimate profession??)anyway, where was I?. Oh! Is to be able to guess randomly.

Hashtag polar bears have no home

 

[westwall]

To be a good "climate scientist"(wait, is that even a legitimate profession??)anyway, where was I?. Oh! Is to be able to guess randomly.

Hashtag polar bears have no home

There are some legit climatologists. They are few and far between, but there are some.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So a guy with degrees in math goes on his wife's blog, and he's your credible climate scientist, yet most every single climate scientist in the world agree with the globe has warmed and man has something to do with it?

Okay -- and you and your blogger know more about the science than NASA does NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming

No you dill; just one of many....and I have supplied you with some of them. I am interested in this guy's calculations and how they stand up to peer review. You aren't. You use the old Chicago style of politics....lie and cheat!!!

Greg

peer review?

What peers, bloggers?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

There are some legit climatologists. They are few and far between, but there are some.

and what is the criteria for legitimacy in your view -- ideology?

 

[westwall]

So a guy with degrees in math goes on his wife's blog, and he's your credible climate scientist, yet most every single climate scientist in the world agree with the globe has warmed and man has something to do with it?

Okay -- and you and your blogger know more about the science than NASA does NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming

No you dill; just one of many....and I have supplied you with some of them. I am interested in this guy's calculations and how they stand up to peer review. You aren't. You use the old Chicago style of politics....lie and cheat!!!

Greg

peer review?

What peers, bloggers?

Better them than the authors wife, like your assholes use.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

But the science is settled!

on the point that the globe has warmed? Yes. As with all science new evidence could alter, upend, or even strengthen the point. NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming

But if you want to claim NASA and most every single expert in the field of climate science is wrong...

please don't whine or complain when you are called a fool

Don't get me started on NASA. That's a whole thread of its own.

yeah, to the moon Alice, To the moon.

 

[westwall]

There are some legit climatologists. They are few and far between, but there are some.

and what is the criteria for legitimacy in your view -- ideology?

No. Adherence to the scientific method. Still waiting for you to post it up and how it affects appeals to authority.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

But the science is settled!

on the point that the globe has warmed? Yes. As with all science new evidence could alter, upend, or even strengthen the point. NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming

But if you want to claim NASA and most every single expert in the field of climate science is wrong...

please don't whine or complain when you are called a fool

I guess you haven't kept up with the current science. Here is what the the IPCC has to say about the "pause" (though they call it the hiatus) so even YOUR source for all that you hold dear says the pause is real and they can't explain it other than normal variability! Dude, you're now just making yourself look really fucking stupid.

"Surface Warming “Pause”
After a period of rapid warming during the 1990s, global mean surface temperatures have not warmed as rapidly over the past decade. The AR5 notes there are “differences between simulated and observed trends over periods as short as 10-15 years (e.g., 1998-2012)”. It concludes that the recent reduction in surface warming is probably due to a redistribution of heat in the ocean, volcanic eruptions, and the recent minimum in the 11-year solar cycle. Most importantly, the report specifically points out that these trends should not undermine our confidence in the “big picture” of our understanding of climate change: “trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends.”

In addition, there is new research proposing explanations for the recent trends that did not make the deadline to be included in the AR5. One paper suggests that some of this “lost” heat is actually in the deep ocean, while another notes that the warming “pause” is actually explained by the unusual number of La Niña (sea surface cooling events) in the Pacific Ocean. The second paper by Yu Kosaka and Shang-Ping Xie states that the “current hiatus is part of natural climate variability, tied specifically to a La-Niña-like decadal cooling. Although similar decadal hiatus events may occur in the future, the multi-decadal warming trend is very likely to continue.”

IPCC AR5 Working Group I Highlights | Center for Climate and Energy Solutions

Is the hard-on you people have with the IPPC all over the 'I' - International?