The global warming thread. Is it for real?

[Oddball]

Blablablabla.

None of that has anything to do with the fact that you have no actual physically producible, quantifiable, falsifiable proof of your hypothesis.

The rest is just a bunch of smoke blowing...Which you don't do particularly well either.

Blablablablabla.

Yes, it is measurable, falsifiable and repeatable. *You seem to be completely unwilling to accept the reality of this. *All you have done is played word games with the definition of model and science, desperately trying to avoid the reality that

leads to

which when all the science is brought to bear on it, yields

and

The independent, driving data goes in. The dependent, driven prediction comes out. *The predicted output matches the actual driven data, within the level of accepted uncertainty. And with every new year, every new set of additional data, every new satellite, every new run of CRAVE, new set of data from ARGO, the model gets better.

The largest unknown now is national policy. The science is way past that.

But I get your problem, you can't distinguish between*
anon=-3.08+0.0092*CO2,*
F=ma,*
"chunkhead", and
"blablabla".

It all just sounds the same to you. As a model of reality, the noise in your head exceeds the input.

On the other hand, I now do

anon=-3.08+0.00922*CO2

from memory.

Which is why I get smarter and you just stay ignorant.

And all I have are the very words of your High Priests...

"The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

~Keven Trenberth, UCAR

BBC, to Phil Jones of the CRU at East Anglia:"Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?"

Jones: "Yes..."



And I didn't even need no pretty colored charts and graphs!

 

[PMZ]

Blablablabla.

None of that has anything to do with the fact that you have no actual physically producible, quantifiable, falsifiable proof of your hypothesis.

The rest is just a bunch of smoke blowing...Which you don't do particularly well either.

Blablablablabla.

Yes, it is measurable, falsifiable and repeatable. *You seem to be completely unwilling to accept the reality of this. *All you have done is played word games with the definition of model and science, desperately trying to avoid the reality that

leads to

which when all the science is brought to bear on it, yields

and

The independent, driving data goes in. The dependent, driven prediction comes out. *The predicted output matches the actual driven data, within the level of accepted uncertainty. And with every new year, every new set of additional data, every new satellite, every new run of CRAVE, new set of data from ARGO, the model gets better.

The largest unknown now is national policy. The science is way past that.

But I get your problem, you can't distinguish between*
anon=-3.08+0.0092*CO2,*
F=ma,*
"chunkhead", and
"blablabla".

It all just sounds the same to you. As a model of reality, the noise in your head exceeds the input.

On the other hand, I now do

anon=-3.08+0.00922*CO2

from memory.

Which is why I get smarter and you just stay ignorant.

And all I have are the very words of your High Priests...

"The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

~Keven Trenberth, UCAR

BBC, to Phil Jones of the CRU at East Anglia:"Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?"

Jones: "Yes..."



And I didn't even need no pretty colored charts and graphs!

What's your theory that explains what you believe to be true about that?

 

[PMZ]

Those are ALL derived from models. And the models have been proven to be less than worthless.

You'll have to do better if you wish to be taken seriously.

How else would you understand climate dynamics other than modeling it?

By coming up with repeatable, verifiable, quantifiable methods to prove it beyond any reasonable doubt.

But all you have are imperfect models, designed to get the result you're getting...And they keep getting it wrong.

AGW has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt in the minds of those equipped to understand the necessary science. I assume that like I, there are many topics that others understand way beyond you too. Or do you believe that you are equipped to understand everything that all others know?

 

[westwall]

Blablablablabla.

Yes, it is measurable, falsifiable and repeatable. *You seem to be completely unwilling to accept the reality of this. *All you have done is played word games with the definition of model and science, desperately trying to avoid the reality that

leads to

which when all the science is brought to bear on it, yields

and

The independent, driving data goes in. The dependent, driven prediction comes out. *The predicted output matches the actual driven data, within the level of accepted uncertainty. And with every new year, every new set of additional data, every new satellite, every new run of CRAVE, new set of data from ARGO, the model gets better.

The largest unknown now is national policy. The science is way past that.

But I get your problem, you can't distinguish between*
anon=-3.08+0.0092*CO2,*
F=ma,*
"chunkhead", and
"blablabla".

It all just sounds the same to you. As a model of reality, the noise in your head exceeds the input.

On the other hand, I now do

anon=-3.08+0.00922*CO2

from memory.

Which is why I get smarter and you just stay ignorant.

Those are ALL derived from models. And the models have been proven to be less than worthless.

You'll have to do better if you wish to be taken seriously.

How else would you understand climate dynamics other than modeling it?

Ummmmmm, first you have to build a useful model. NONE of the ones used today are. Not one....


A paper published today in Climate of the Past finds climate models are unable to reproduce the temperatures of the mid-Miocene Climatic Optimum when CO2 levels were about the same as today [400 ppm]. The authors find the models simulate a global mean temperature 4°C less than determined from climate proxies, and "an equator to pole temperature gradient which is at least ~ 10°C larger than the reconstruction from proxies." The authors acknowledge "a major climate problem" between the model world and the real world reconstructions. The paper adds to hundreds of other peer reviewed publications indicating that there are fundamental flaws in the climate models, including sensitivity to CO2, feedbacks, and heat transfer assumptions. Prior papers have also found that climate models are unable to reproduce the Medieval Warming Period, or the 20th & 21st century climate, much less the future.

http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/9/3489/2013/cpd-9-3489-2013.pdf


"The Guardian, 14 June 2013: Climate scientists and meteorologists are meeting next week to debate the causes of UK’s disappointing weather in recent years.

The Met Office’s temperature forecasts issued in 12 out of the last 13 years have been too warm. None of the forecasts issued ended up too cold. That makes the errors systemic and significant.

"Which begs other, rather important questions. Could the model, seemingly with an inability to predict colder seasons, have developed a warm bias, after such a long period of milder than average years? Experts I have spoken to tell me that this certainly is possible with such computer models. And if this is the case, what are the implications for the Hadley centre’s predictions for future global temperatures? Could they be affected by such a warm bias? If global temperatures were to fall in years to come would the computer model be capable of forecasting this?""

Met Office brainstorms UK bad weather | UK news | The Guardian


A paper published today in Geophysical Research Letters finds, once again, that climate models get the core assumptions wrong and that the fabled 'hot spot' is still missing. All climate models predict the tropical troposphere will warm the fastest to produce a 'hot spot,' yet observations from satellites and 28 million weather balloons confirm that there is no hot spot, and that the surface has warmed more than the tropical troposphere. This new paper confirms that "The modeled [tropical tropospheric] trend is significantly higher than that of the measured ones, confirming that the vertical amplification of warming is exaggerated in models." The authors "suggest that the vertical amplification of warming derived from modelled simulations is weighted with a persistent signal, which should be removed in order to achieve better agreement with observations." Most likely, that "persistent signal" that "should be removed" from the models is the core assumption of an anthropogenic 'hot spot' present in all climate models.

Plausible reasons for the inconsistencies between the modelled and observed temperatures in the tropical troposphere - Varotsos - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

And on, and on, and on......a litany of climate model failures. Whenever they are compared vs the real world they always, ALWAYS fail.

That's the difference between us sceptics and you religious anti-science nutters. We actually look at your track record...you rely on "faith".

 

[westwall]

How else would you understand climate dynamics other than modeling it?

By coming up with repeatable, verifiable, quantifiable methods to prove it beyond any reasonable doubt.

But all you have are imperfect models, designed to get the result you're getting...And they keep getting it wrong.

AGW has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt in the minds of those equipped to understand the necessary science. I assume that like I, there are many topics that others understand way beyond you too. Or do you believe that you are equipped to understand everything that all others know?

No, it hasn't. It has been "proven" to anti-scientific religious nutters who rely on faith....not science.

 

[itfitzme]

Blablablabla.

None of that has anything to do with the fact that you have no actual physically producible, quantifiable, falsifiable proof of your hypothesis.

The rest is just a bunch of smoke blowing...Which you don't do particularly well either.

Blablablablabla.

Yes, it is measurable, falsifiable and repeatable. *You seem to be completely unwilling to accept the reality of this. *All you have done is played word games with the definition of model and science, desperately trying to avoid the reality that

leads to

which when all the science is brought to bear on it, yields

and

The independent, driving data goes in. The dependent, driven prediction comes out. *The predicted output matches the actual driven data, within the level of accepted uncertainty. And with every new year, every new set of additional data, every new satellite, every new run of CRAVE, new set of data from ARGO, the model gets better.

The largest unknown now is national policy. The science is way past that.

But I get your problem, you can't distinguish between*
anon=-3.08+0.0092*CO2,*
F=ma,*
"chunkhead", and
"blablabla".

It all just sounds the same to you. As a model of reality, the noise in your head exceeds the input.

On the other hand, I now do

anon=-3.08+0.00922*CO2

from memory.

Which is why I get smarter and you just stay ignorant.

And all I have are the very words of your High Priests...

"The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

~Keven Trenberth, UCAR

BBC, to Phil Jones of the CRU at East Anglia:"Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?"

Jones: "Yes..."



And I didn't even need no pretty colored charts and graphs!

Yeah, and if you use standard mechanical physics models, you can't account for the frictional*losses. And yet, you love mechanical physics. It fit's your over simplified definition of science.

So here we have*

And what you are talking about, is that little flat spot at the very end. Yet it is still within the range of the acceptable model error.

So your saying, it's off by 2% so it is wrong. *They are saying, it's off by 2% so were improving it.

It's the difference between knowing what you're talking about and not.

You don't have a clue.

 

[Oddball]

Blablablablabla.

Yes, it is measurable, falsifiable and repeatable. *You seem to be completely unwilling to accept the reality of this. *All you have done is played word games with the definition of model and science, desperately trying to avoid the reality that

leads to

which when all the science is brought to bear on it, yields

and

The independent, driving data goes in. The dependent, driven prediction comes out. *The predicted output matches the actual driven data, within the level of accepted uncertainty. And with every new year, every new set of additional data, every new satellite, every new run of CRAVE, new set of data from ARGO, the model gets better.

The largest unknown now is national policy. The science is way past that.

But I get your problem, you can't distinguish between*
anon=-3.08+0.0092*CO2,*
F=ma,*
"chunkhead", and
"blablabla".

It all just sounds the same to you. As a model of reality, the noise in your head exceeds the input.

On the other hand, I now do

anon=-3.08+0.00922*CO2

from memory.

Which is why I get smarter and you just stay ignorant.

And all I have are the very words of your High Priests...

"The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

~Keven Trenberth, UCAR

BBC, to Phil Jones of the CRU at East Anglia:"Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?"

Jones: "Yes..."



And I didn't even need no pretty colored charts and graphs!

Yeah, and if you use standard mechanical physics models, you can't account for the frictional*losses. And yet, you love mechanical physics. It fit's your over simplified definition of science.

So here we have*

And what you are talking about, is that little flat spot at the very end. Yet it is still within the range of the acceptable model error.

So your saying, it's off by 2% so it is wrong. *They are saying, it's off by 2% so were improving it.

It's the difference between knowing what you're talking about and not.

You don't have a clue.

What I'm talking about are two people who admitted that their models were wrong and changed them after the fact.

This is what's known as "moving the goalposts"....Or, as I like to call it, sub-prime science.

Helpful hint: If Michael Mann gets on the PA and unexpectedly calls everyone to a special meeting in the pavilion, don't go.

 

[itfitzme]

"And I didn't even need no pretty colored charts and graphs!"

We'll, that explains it. You seem to believe you can do it without using math.

 

[itfitzme]

And all I have are the very words of your High Priests...

"The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

~Keven Trenberth, UCAR

BBC, to Phil Jones of the CRU at East Anglia:"Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?"

Jones: "Yes..."



And I didn't even need no pretty colored charts and graphs!

Yeah, and if you use standard mechanical physics models, you can't account for the frictional*losses. And yet, you love mechanical physics. It fit's your over simplified definition of science.

So here we have*

And what you are talking about, is that little flat spot at the very end. Yet it is still within the range of the acceptable model error.

So your saying, it's off by 2% so it is wrong. *They are saying, it's off by 2% so were improving it.

It's the difference between knowing what you're talking about and not.

You don't have a clue.

What I'm talking about are two people who admitted that their models were wrong and changed them after the fact.

This is what's known as "moving the goalposts"....Or, as I like to call it, sub-prime science.

Helpful hint: If Michael Mann gets on the PA and unexpectedly calls everyone to a special meeting in the pavilion, don't go.

Not one said, "our models are wrong" that's that noise in your head I'm talking about. *Nor is it "moving the goal post" when the kicker gets the football between the two uprights and it's not dead center. All he has to do is get it between the uprights.

It's you saying that the other team has to get the football through a tire, strung between the uprights because you don't like the score.

 

[Oddball]

Blablablablabla.

Yes, it is measurable, falsifiable and repeatable. *You seem to be completely unwilling to accept the reality of this. *All you have done is played word games with the definition of model and science, desperately trying to avoid the reality that

leads to

which when all the science is brought to bear on it, yields

and

The independent, driving data goes in. The dependent, driven prediction comes out. *The predicted output matches the actual driven data, within the level of accepted uncertainty. And with every new year, every new set of additional data, every new satellite, every new run of CRAVE, new set of data from ARGO, the model gets better.

The largest unknown now is national policy. The science is way past that.

But I get your problem, you can't distinguish between*
anon=-3.08+0.0092*CO2,*
F=ma,*
"chunkhead", and
"blablabla".

It all just sounds the same to you. As a model of reality, the noise in your head exceeds the input.

On the other hand, I now do

anon=-3.08+0.00922*CO2

from memory.

Which is why I get smarter and you just stay ignorant.

And all I have are the very words of your High Priests...

"The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

~Keven Trenberth, UCAR

BBC, to Phil Jones of the CRU at East Anglia:"Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?"

Jones: "Yes..."



And I didn't even need no pretty colored charts and graphs!

What's your theory that explains what you believe to be true about that?

No theory...Those are their words, not mine.

Sorry you're such a blind follower that you cannot see when your own High Priests are admitting that they're wrong.

 

[itfitzme]

"BBC, to Phil Jones of the CRU at East Anglia:"Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?""

Do you even know what "statistically significant" means?

 

[Oddball]

Do you know what "move the goalposts" means?

 

[itfitzme]

And all I have are the very words of your High Priests...

"The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

~Keven Trenberth, UCAR

BBC, to Phil Jones of the CRU at East Anglia:"Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?"

Jones: "Yes..."



And I didn't even need no pretty colored charts and graphs!

What's your theory that explains what you believe to be true about that?

No theory...Those are their words, not mine.

Sorry you're such a blind follower that you cannot see when your own High Priests are admitting that they're wrong.

You don't even understand what those quotes say, the complete opposite of what you think they say. Both say that the temperature measurements aren't good enough and the models are right.

The first one clearly says, it's the temperature measurement. *And the second say, we can't tell from the temperature measurements because it's not statistically significant.

You're so desperate to prove you're right, you can't even read what they say

You even highlighted it, " but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate." *DATA!!!

 

[itfitzme]

Do you know what "move the goalposts" means?

Do you know what data is?

Statistically significant?

A graph? Clearly not, to you it's a pretty picture.

 

[Oddball]

I know what people making shit up after the fact to try and cover their asses is....And this is it.

You warmerists are just like the mother of the neighborhood red-headed hellion, who swears up and down that her Billy boy is a little angel!

 

[SSDD]

Yeah, they were going to run physical test, by changing the CO2 concentration in Earth's atmosphere, over repeated concentrations and other factors, but they decided that would take to long.

The problem is that in climate pseudoscience, not actual tests are ever done. Corelation and outright fabrication are all that's necessary.

You think we should stop training airline pilots in flight simulators? *The US military seems to be pretty happy with them for fighter pilots. *I thing NASA trained the shuttle pilots in them too. *Maybe the IPCC guys might have picked up a trick or two from NASA. *Maybe someone at the IPCC might even know someone at NASA, you never know.

Damn but you are a stupid fuck. There are literally volumes of hard, empirical data in use that make a simulator analogous to flying the aircraft it is simulating. Lets see the volumes of hard empirical data that make those simulated numbers analogous to anything measurable in the real world.

 

[SSDD]

Oooo....A stupid leftbat cartoon from those weekly urban arts & entertainment rags!

That'll fix their wagons!

Ever notice how unfunny leftists cartoons are? In my whole long life, I doubt that I have seen more than half a dozen leftists cartoons that actually manage anything resembling humor. Tight assed hysterics...nothing more, nothing less.

 

[SSDD]

Global warming, a myth?
Yeah. Those rapidly disappearing glaciers, stronger hurricanes, floodings and fires are just figments of our imagination.

Strawmen as far as the eye can see. Neither global warming, nor climate change are the issue. The issue is whether either have anthropogenic origins...therein lies the myth...and the lies.

 

[SSDD]

Yes, the times they are a changing. McIntyre (who you so despise because...well he's right and kicks your collective asses to the kerb at every opportunity) was correct yet again and Briffa et al were as usual WRONG!

Hey Ya! (mal) McIntyre was right – CRU Abandons one tree Yamal Superstick

This must be personally satisfying for Steve McIntyre, though I doubt the folks at RealClimate will have the integrity to acknowledge that he was right, and they were wrong.

It seems that in the latest publication from CRU’s Keith Briffa, they decided to leave out those elements (The most influential tree in the world) Steve identified that led to the Yamal Superstick.

Hey Ya! (mal) McIntyre was right ? CRU Abandons one tree Yamal Superstick | Watts Up With That?

McIntyre is a loser.

Except that every time he goes up against climate pseudoscience, he wins. If he is kicking your collective asses and is a loser, then how far in the depths of looserdom do you guys reside?

 

[PMZ]

The real question is what force can make others feel entitled to be right? Especially people who know little science vs 97% of qualified scientists.

It is a rhetorical question, as the world of doers, those that count, are already placing their bets and cheering for the energy technologies that they think have the best learning curves.

And the politicians of the world are working on ways to get those who need to use our atmosphere as a dumping ground to pay at least the monetary cost of mitigating the physical damage that they're causing.

So, there is no longer anything that will change due to the whining of the Cult of Denial Chapter of the Flat Earth Society, but, still, they persist in the entitlement to be right that someone must have granted them.

It's just plain crazy.