The global warming thread. Is it for real?

[itfitzme]

What's funny is these clowns look at model outputs and think they qualify as data. It says a great deal about their level of education (or lack thereof) that they will look at computer models and not realize that they are fictional. They may or may not have any basis in reality (we have seen that climate models actually DON'T have a basis in reality) but that interests them not at all.

They may as well read the Harry Potter books to tell them what the climate is....they are every bit as good at predicting the future climate as the computer models are.

Who said they were physical data? Physical data goes in, model data comes out.

Physical data does NOT go in. Ideas go in. Fiction comes out. That's why the models have now been completely wrong for the last 15 years and why they were on;y correct so long as the correlation was continuing. Good scientists can tell you (and it is in fact a scientific maxim) that "correlation does not equal causation" but the warmists have built their entire "science" around correlation.

That's why it's collapsing so fast....violate a maxim to that extent and when the correlation no longer works you're screwed because you have no real science to fall back on.

So basically, you have no clue how modeling works.

 

[westwall]

Who said they were physical data? Physical data goes in, model data comes out.

Physical data does NOT go in. Ideas go in. Fiction comes out. That's why the models have now been completely wrong for the last 15 years and why they were on;y correct so long as the correlation was continuing. Good scientists can tell you (and it is in fact a scientific maxim) that "correlation does not equal causation" but the warmists have built their entire "science" around correlation.

That's why it's collapsing so fast....violate a maxim to that extent and when the correlation no longer works you're screwed because you have no real science to fall back on.

So basically, you have no clue how modeling works.

Actually I do. It's you who clearly hasn't got a clue as to what your are babbling on about.

My experience with models is funnily enough in aviation, which was why when you, or your other you, tried to use aircraft modeling as an analog for the BS that is climate modeling, I had to laugh. You guys are SO FAR out of your element it is just sad.

You parrot what your handlers tell you to parrot, but like a parrot, you don't understand one thing of what you spew....

 

[SSDD]

Who said they were physical data? Physical data goes in, model data comes out.

You do...every time you point at the output of a computer model as evidence for AGW or a study whose findings are based on a model. The models only do what they have been told to do and clearly, they are being told the wrong thing as evidenced by their spectacular failure.

 

[SSDD]

Here's something to ponder. Airplanes start existence as a computer model, and when built they fly. The models predict it and it happens. Of course, Harry Potter can fly too. You've got us there.

Airplanes don't start out as computer models. Computer come later in the design process. And the models are based on a set of physics that are known to produce accurate results. Would you fly in an airplane based on a computer model that predicts outcomes as well as climate models? If you are going to play with an alogies, at least try to think of one that doesn't, by definition, shoot your point down.

 

[SSDD]

Which is all of the evidence available leading to the conclusion that AGW doesn't exist.

There is no evidence that would lead a rational person to the conclusion that AGW does exist. Show me one piece of hard, measured, empirical evidence that proves that adding 100 ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming...then tell me how much warming that addition will cause.

You keep claiming that it is true, and that all the evidence points to it but when asked for that evidence, you never fail to fail to provide it. That should tell you something.

 

[SSDD]

The rate of heat building up on Earth over the past decade is equivalent to detonating about 4 Hiroshima atomic bombs per second. Take a moment to visualize 4 atomic bomb detonations happening every single second. That's the global warming that we're frequently told isn't happening."

You guys prove that you don't have a clue when you gobble up that sort of pap and repeat it as if it meant something. 4 Hiroshima bombs per second? Wow. And that impresses you?

I guess you are unaware that the energy from the sun reaching the earth is roughly equal to 1950 Hiroshima bombs per second. 4 more causes you to quake in your boots?

Hansen already played the Hiroshima bomb game and it blew up in his face. Guess cook didn't get the memo...or simply assumed that the people hansen scared with his bomb talk would get scared all over again by his. Here is the math, if you care to see how pitifully idiotic such a scare tactic is.

Let’s do the numbers. First, let’s convert the extra heat into an iconic image people can understand that isn’t quite as scary: the incandescent light bulb (not the twisty kind). Willis Eschenbach calculated:

1 ton of TNT = 4.184e+9 joules (J) source

Hiroshima bomb = 15 kilotons of TNT = 6.28e+13 joules (ibid)

Hansen says increase in forcing is “400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs per day”, which comes to 2.51e+19 joules/day.

A watt is a joule per second, so that works out to a constant additional global forcing of 2.91e+14 watts.

Normally, we look at forcings in watts per square metre (W/m2). Total forcing (solar plus longwave) averaged around the globe 24/7 is about 500 watts per square metre.

To convert Hansen’s figures to a per-square-metre value, the global surface area is 5.11e+14 square metres … which means that Hansens dreaded 400,000 Hiroshima bombs per day works out to 0.6 watts per square metre … in other words, Hansen wants us to be very afraid because of a claimed imbalance of six tenths of a watt per square metre in a system where the downwelling radiation is half a kilowatt per square metre … we cannot even measure the radiation to that kind of accuracy.

So imagine the output of a 0.6 watt light bulb, 1/100th the power of a common household 60 watt light bulb.

Could you even see it?

And, more importantly, can that 0.6 watt of energy imbalance even be accurately measured on a global basis?

 

[SSDD]

That's about the most harebrained comparison I've heard in quite some time.

Give him a little while, I am sure he can top that.

 

[SSDD]

So basically, you have no clue how modeling works.

Not sure about him, but it is pretty clear that you don't. You think that if you just type in data upon data upon data into a computer you get a working model? Or is the data just what the model works with. The model itself is the ideas, assumptions, etc., translated into a mathematical language which then digests the real world data.

If the ideas, assumptions, etc., that make up the model are incorrect, then the output which is the result of the model digesting the real world data will be incorrect as we have clearly seen by the spectacular failure of the models. Clearly the energy cycle and therefore the AGW hypothesis that the models portray is incorrect or their output would closely mesh with the observation in the real world.

 

[PMZ]

Here's something to ponder. Airplanes start existence as a computer model, and when built they fly. The models predict it and it happens. Of course, Harry Potter can fly too. You've got us there.

Airplanes don't start out as computer models. Computer come later in the design process. And the models are based on a set of physics that are known to produce accurate results. Would you fly in an airplane based on a computer model that predicts outcomes as well as climate models? If you are going to play with an alogies, at least try to think of one that doesn't, by definition, shoot your point down.

Add airplane design to the growing list of things that you know nothing about. Complex mechanisms today begin life as 3D CAD models with finite element analysis.

Climate models are much the same. If this happens what changes does it cause in its immediate locale and how does that spread over time. Only denyers use paper and pencil guesses to keep alive hope for a different answer.

Science is objective. Hoping for a particular outcome is voodoo.

 

[Oddball]

That's why computer models are supervised by scientists. Just like the machines at 7/11 that predict how much change you'll receive.

That's about the most harebrained comparison I've heard in quite some time.

It is called an a-nal-o-gy.

The scientist is like the cashier.
The climate data is like the money.
The computer is like the cash register.
The temperature output is like the change.

See how that works? *The elements of one map to the other.

It's called dumber that dirt.

Comparing an infinitely diverse and flexible global ecosystem to making change at the 7-11 is so absurd as to be self-evident.....Well, that is except to you.

 

[PMZ]

Who said they were physical data? Physical data goes in, model data comes out.

You do...every time you point at the output of a computer model as evidence for AGW or a study whose findings are based on a model. The models only do what they have been told to do and clearly, they are being told the wrong thing as evidenced by their spectacular failure.

What you consider "their spectacular failure" is the fact that they concluded things different than your wild ass guesses. If the 97% of qualified scientists that accept AGW as the explanation for what can be measured weren't competent and objective way beyond you, the world would be sitting on a precipice fat dumb and happy while doing all of the wrong things instead of preparing for the inevitable future.

 

[PMZ]

Which is all of the evidence available leading to the conclusion that AGW doesn't exist.

There is no evidence that would lead a rational person to the conclusion that AGW does exist. Show me one piece of hard, measured, empirical evidence that proves that adding 100 ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming...then tell me how much warming that addition will cause.

You keep claiming that it is true, and that all the evidence points to it but when asked for that evidence, you never fail to fail to provide it. That should tell you something.

Well, it's a DD and here comes the SS.

 

[PMZ]

That's about the most harebrained comparison I've heard in quite some time.

It is called an a-nal-o-gy.

The scientist is like the cashier.
The climate data is like the money.
The computer is like the cash register.
The temperature output is like the change.

See how that works? *The elements of one map to the other.

It's called dumber that dirt.

Comparing an infinitely diverse and flexible global ecosystem to making change at the 7-11 is so absurd as to be self-evident.....Well, that is except to you.

"Comparing an infinitely diverse and flexible global ecosystem to making change at the 7-11 is so absurd as to be self-evident"

And yet denyers do the equivalent here everyday.

 

[Oddball]

It is called an a-nal-o-gy.

The scientist is like the cashier.
The climate data is like the money.
The computer is like the cash register.
The temperature output is like the change.

See how that works? *The elements of one map to the other.

It's called dumber that dirt.

Comparing an infinitely diverse and flexible global ecosystem to making change at the 7-11 is so absurd as to be self-evident.....Well, that is except to you.

"Comparing an infinitely diverse and flexible global ecosystem to making change at the 7-11 is so absurd as to be self-evident"

And yet denyers do the equivalent here everyday.

I'm not the one comparing the stupid computer models as analogous to making change as a convenience store, Corky.

 

[flacaltenn]

Physical data does NOT go in. Ideas go in. Fiction comes out. That's why the models have now been completely wrong for the last 15 years and why they were on;y correct so long as the correlation was continuing. Good scientists can tell you (and it is in fact a scientific maxim) that "correlation does not equal causation" but the warmists have built their entire "science" around correlation.

That's why it's collapsing so fast....violate a maxim to that extent and when the correlation no longer works you're screwed because you have no real science to fall back on.

Why is Reuters puzzled by global warming's acceleration?
'Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown,' said Reuters. But warming is speeding up, and scientists can explain it


"Oceans, such as the Pacific pictured here from space, are absorbing much of the warming the planet is currently experiencing. NASA/ Roger Ressmeyer/ Corbis
The rate of heat building up on Earth over the past decade is equivalent to detonating about 4 Hiroshima atomic bombs per second. Take a moment to visualize 4 atomic bomb detonations happening every single second. That's the global warming that we're frequently told isn't happening."

"There are periods when the ocean heats up more quickly than the surface, and other periods when the surface heats up more quickly than the oceans. Right now we're in a period of fast ocean warming and overall, global warming is continuing at a very fast pace."

"The confusion on this subject lies in the fact that only about 2 percent of global warming is used in heating air, whereas about 90 percent of global warming goes into heating the oceans (the rest heats ice and land masses). But humans live at the Earth's surface, and thus we tend to focus on surface temperatures. Over the past 10–15 years, Earth's surface temperature has continued to rise, but slowly. At the same time, the warming of the oceans – and the warming of the Earth as a whole – has accelerated."

"This was the conclusion of a scientific paper I co-authored last year, in which our team found more overall global warming (of the oceans, air, land, and ice combined) over the past 15 years than during the prior 15 years. Just recently, another paper published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters found that the warming of the oceans since the turn of the century has been the most sustained in the past 50 years. They also found that, consistent with my team's research, about 30% of overall global warming has gone into the deep oceans below 700 meters due to changing wind patterns and ocean currents. This accelerated deep ocean warming is also unprecedented in the past 50 years."

"We often hear from the media that the (surface air) warming has slowed or paused over the past 15 years. This isn't a puzzle; climate scientists are well aware of several contributing factors, as a recent Reuters article – "Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown"*– eventually discussed. The accelerated warming of the oceans is likely the main contributor."

"During years with La Niña events, more heat is transferred to the oceans, and surface temperatures are relatively cool as a result. The opposite is true during El Niño years. During the 1990s, there were more El Niño than La Niña events, which resulted in more surface air warming. One of the strongest El Niño events of the century happened in 1998, which not coincidentally was 15 years ago."

"When people say 'no warming in 15 years', they're cherry picking the timeframe to begin in an abnormally hot year. It's like arguing that your car must have broken down because it hasn't moved in the 15 seconds while you've been stopped at a red light. The argument selects a short timeframe that's not representative of the whole."

"Since 2000, there has been a preponderance of La Niña events, which has acted to temporarily bury more global warming in the oceans. A new study published in Nature Climate Change found that by taking into account the short-term changes caused by factors like El Niño and La Niña cycles, they could accurately forecast the slowed warming at the surface several years in advance. The paper concluded,"

"Our results hence point at the key role of the ocean heat uptake in the recent warming slowdown."

"Reuters did not talk to the authors of this study, or ask any other climate scientists about this surface warming slowdown that they're supposed to be puzzled about. Actually that's not quite true. Just a week earlier, Reuters interviewed the lead author of that paper in an article with the headline "Oceans may explain slowdown in climate change". The article noted,"


"Experts in France and Spain said on Sunday that the oceans took up more warmth from the air around 2000. That would help explain the slowdown in surface warming but would also suggest that the pause may be only temporary and brief."

"Reuters didn't connect the dots between these two articles, telling us one week that oceans help explain the surface warming slowdown, and the next week claiming the slowdown is puzzling climate scientists. However, these 'slowdowns' happen on a regular basis. You can find one every 5 to 10 years in the surface temperature data, as illustrated in a graphic I created nicknamed 'The Escalator'."


"Average of NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4 monthly global surface temperature anomalies from January 1970 through November 2012 (green) with linear trends applied to the timeframes Jan '70 - Oct '77, Apr '77 - Dec '86, Sep '87 - Nov '96, Jun '97 - Dec '02, and Nov '02 - Nov '12.
During periods with more La Niñas, surface temperatures temporarily flatten out. But global warming does not. As long as humans continue to increase the greenhouse effect by burning massive quantities of fossil fuels, the planet will continue to warm, as is clear from the acceleration of global warming since 2000."

Plagiarizing from the guardian must be your favorite past time you did in two threads now...

Not only is it plagiarized -- it screams phoney excuses. If all those NATURAL events that are so well known are NOT INCLUDED in those marvelous "climate models" -- what good are they? If known ocean cycles and effects can totally mask the warming predicted by the models --- the models are worth jack shit..

 

[itfitzme]

That's about the most harebrained comparison I've heard in quite some time.

It is called an a-nal-o-gy.

The scientist is like the cashier.
The climate data is like the money.
The computer is like the cash register.
The temperature output is like the change.

See how that works? *The elements of one map to the other.

It's called dumber that dirt.

Comparing an infinitely diverse and flexible global ecosystem to making change at the 7-11 is so absurd as to be self-evident.....Well, that is except to you.

Well your double dumber than mud.

 

[PMZ]

It's called dumber that dirt.

Comparing an infinitely diverse and flexible global ecosystem to making change at the 7-11 is so absurd as to be self-evident.....Well, that is except to you.

"Comparing an infinitely diverse and flexible global ecosystem to making change at the 7-11 is so absurd as to be self-evident"

And yet denyers do the equivalent here everyday.

I'm not the one comparing the stupid computer models as analogous to making change as a convenience store, Corky.

"Stupid" computer models. That says it all, doesn't it? I think that being a climate reactionary fits you like a glove and was inevitable from birth.

 

[Skull Pilot]

There's a lot of debate regarding global warming.
For the purposes of this thread I would only like to debate whether the Earth is actually warming or not.

Some will take this for granted while others might say its a myth.

What are your point of views regarding global warming?
Is it real or there is no such thing as global warming?

( I have my viewpoint but I'll wait until I can post links to voice it ).

Do we want to risk whether it is true or not?

The earth very well may be warming slightly

So what?

We'll all be just fine so risking doing nothing is a better alternative than being subjected to arbitrary capriciously enforced overbearing expensive government regulation.

 

[PMZ]

Why is Reuters puzzled by global warming's acceleration?
'Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown,' said Reuters. But warming is speeding up, and scientists can explain it


"Oceans, such as the Pacific pictured here from space, are absorbing much of the warming the planet is currently experiencing. NASA/ Roger Ressmeyer/ Corbis
The rate of heat building up on Earth over the past decade is equivalent to detonating about 4 Hiroshima atomic bombs per second. Take a moment to visualize 4 atomic bomb detonations happening every single second. That's the global warming that we're frequently told isn't happening."

"There are periods when the ocean heats up more quickly than the surface, and other periods when the surface heats up more quickly than the oceans. Right now we're in a period of fast ocean warming and overall, global warming is continuing at a very fast pace."

"The confusion on this subject lies in the fact that only about 2 percent of global warming is used in heating air, whereas about 90 percent of global warming goes into heating the oceans (the rest heats ice and land masses). But humans live at the Earth's surface, and thus we tend to focus on surface temperatures. Over the past 10–15 years, Earth's surface temperature has continued to rise, but slowly. At the same time, the warming of the oceans – and the warming of the Earth as a whole – has accelerated."

"This was the conclusion of a scientific paper I co-authored last year, in which our team found more overall global warming (of the oceans, air, land, and ice combined) over the past 15 years than during the prior 15 years. Just recently, another paper published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters found that the warming of the oceans since the turn of the century has been the most sustained in the past 50 years. They also found that, consistent with my team's research, about 30% of overall global warming has gone into the deep oceans below 700 meters due to changing wind patterns and ocean currents. This accelerated deep ocean warming is also unprecedented in the past 50 years."

"We often hear from the media that the (surface air) warming has slowed or paused over the past 15 years. This isn't a puzzle; climate scientists are well aware of several contributing factors, as a recent Reuters article – "Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown"*– eventually discussed. The accelerated warming of the oceans is likely the main contributor."

"During years with La Niña events, more heat is transferred to the oceans, and surface temperatures are relatively cool as a result. The opposite is true during El Niño years. During the 1990s, there were more El Niño than La Niña events, which resulted in more surface air warming. One of the strongest El Niño events of the century happened in 1998, which not coincidentally was 15 years ago."

"When people say 'no warming in 15 years', they're cherry picking the timeframe to begin in an abnormally hot year. It's like arguing that your car must have broken down because it hasn't moved in the 15 seconds while you've been stopped at a red light. The argument selects a short timeframe that's not representative of the whole."

"Since 2000, there has been a preponderance of La Niña events, which has acted to temporarily bury more global warming in the oceans. A new study published in Nature Climate Change found that by taking into account the short-term changes caused by factors like El Niño and La Niña cycles, they could accurately forecast the slowed warming at the surface several years in advance. The paper concluded,"

"Our results hence point at the key role of the ocean heat uptake in the recent warming slowdown."

"Reuters did not talk to the authors of this study, or ask any other climate scientists about this surface warming slowdown that they're supposed to be puzzled about. Actually that's not quite true. Just a week earlier, Reuters interviewed the lead author of that paper in an article with the headline "Oceans may explain slowdown in climate change". The article noted,"


"Experts in France and Spain said on Sunday that the oceans took up more warmth from the air around 2000. That would help explain the slowdown in surface warming but would also suggest that the pause may be only temporary and brief."

"Reuters didn't connect the dots between these two articles, telling us one week that oceans help explain the surface warming slowdown, and the next week claiming the slowdown is puzzling climate scientists. However, these 'slowdowns' happen on a regular basis. You can find one every 5 to 10 years in the surface temperature data, as illustrated in a graphic I created nicknamed 'The Escalator'."


"Average of NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4 monthly global surface temperature anomalies from January 1970 through November 2012 (green) with linear trends applied to the timeframes Jan '70 - Oct '77, Apr '77 - Dec '86, Sep '87 - Nov '96, Jun '97 - Dec '02, and Nov '02 - Nov '12.
During periods with more La Niñas, surface temperatures temporarily flatten out. But global warming does not. As long as humans continue to increase the greenhouse effect by burning massive quantities of fossil fuels, the planet will continue to warm, as is clear from the acceleration of global warming since 2000."

Plagiarizing from the guardian must be your favorite past time you did in two threads now...

Not only is it plagiarized -- it screams phoney excuses. If all those NATURAL events that are so well known are NOT INCLUDED in those marvelous "climate models" -- what good are they? If known ocean cycles and effects can totally mask the warming predicted by the models --- the models are worth jack shit..

Well, let's compare the value of climate models vs the value of what you wish was true, Jack.

 

[itfitzme]

Here's something to ponder. Airplanes start existence as a computer model, and when built they fly. The models predict it and it happens. Of course, Harry Potter can fly too. You've got us there.

Airplanes don't start out as computer models. *Computer come later in the design process. *And the models are based on a set of physics that are known to produce accurate results. *Would you fly in an airplane based on a computer model that predicts outcomes as well as climate models? If you are going to play with an alogies, at least try to think of one that doesn't, by definition, shoot your point down.

We are already in this airplane, called the climate. And it's changing whether someone models it or not.*

The change has been occuring since the early 1900s.

The "models use natural (e.g. solar) and anthropogenic inputs. Here is a graphic for the inputs to the climate models. Note that both natural (including solar) and anthropogenic effects are included."

"Natural effects only, in blue, are NOT sufficient to produce agreement with the data, especially in the last 30 years. "

And this is one airplane that noone will be disembarking soon.

Climate Models