Think Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant?

[flacaltenn]

More evidence here and now than at any other time and place in the planet's history.

The amount of CO2 released by humans is calculable from simple bookkeeping and by isotopic analysis that quantifies CO2 from fossil fuel combustion. And let me point out that CO2 released from sequestration by warming caused by CO2 increases, is still warming that would not have happened without the GHG buildup and one that can be controlled by controlling GHG emissions.

What distinction are you trying to make?

The isotope measurement is not definitive. Far from it. First its not very sensitive. New carbon has a c13/c12 ratio of something like 1.1 and old carbon has a similiar ratio of about 1.09. Divining the diff between these on a whole atmos level is difficult because those ratios have an overlapping stat distribution..

But more importantly, there is no real marker on escaping Co2 from the oceans which has been recycled over the years and is 20 times larger than mans annual contributions. CO2 can also be released from those Arctic CH4 leaks thru biochem breakdown (or from ocean CH4) and is indistinguishable from combustion by man.

Many studies point out the weaknesses of relying solely on isotope ratio.

 

[Kosh]

More evidence here and now than at any other time and place in the planet's history.

The amount of CO2 released by humans is calculable from simple bookkeeping and by isotopic analysis that quantifies CO2 from fossil fuel combustion. And let me point out that CO2 released from sequestration by warming caused by CO2 increases, is still warming that would not have happened without the GHG buildup and one that can be controlled by controlling GHG emissions.

What distinction are you trying to make?

More AGW propaganda.

CO2 often lags behind temperature. There is more proof showing that CO2 does NOT control climate than what the AGW church tell us.

 

[daveman]

So you admit that he is a "prince" in name only. Congratulations.

You fucked up...and it's MY fault?



And there is no question about it...you undeniably fucked up. I knew Prince is his first name. I never thought it was a title.

You, on the other hand...fucked up.

Since he is not a prince and Prince is his name, how did I fuck up? Do tell.

You thought it was a self-granted title.

It's okay. You can admit you were wrong. Mature people do that.

 

[westwall]

More evidence here and now than at any other time and place in the planet's history.

The amount of CO2 released by humans is calculable from simple bookkeeping and by isotopic analysis that quantifies CO2 from fossil fuel combustion. And let me point out that CO2 released from sequestration by warming caused by CO2 increases, is still warming that would not have happened without the GHG buildup and one that can be controlled by controlling GHG emissions.

What distinction are you trying to make?

Then why can't you present anything that is measurable? Why is climatology, as a science, resorting to pseudo-scientific methods to try and push its agenda?

 

[Abraham3]

More evidence here and now than at any other time and place in the planet's history.

The amount of CO2 released by humans is calculable from simple bookkeeping and by isotopic analysis that quantifies CO2 from fossil fuel combustion. And let me point out that CO2 released from sequestration by warming caused by CO2 increases, is still warming that would not have happened without the GHG buildup and one that can be controlled by controlling GHG emissions.

What distinction are you trying to make?

Well, if it's so simple, why are the climate models always wrong?

That's not much of a comment, but the answer is that they're models making approximations of enormously complex systems. They do amazingly well considering the challenges.

ps: it's ignorant to say they are "wrong".

 

[Abraham3]

More evidence here and now than at any other time and place in the planet's history.

The amount of CO2 released by humans is calculable from simple bookkeeping and by isotopic analysis that quantifies CO2 from fossil fuel combustion. And let me point out that CO2 released from sequestration by warming caused by CO2 increases, is still warming that would not have happened without the GHG buildup and one that can be controlled by controlling GHG emissions.

What distinction are you trying to make?

Then why can't you present anything that is measurable? Why is climatology, as a science, resorting to pseudo-scientific methods to try and push its agenda?

Why do you waste so much of our time posting falsehoods?

 

[HelenaHandbag]

More evidence here and now than at any other time and place in the planet's history.

The amount of CO2 released by humans is calculable from simple bookkeeping and by isotopic analysis that quantifies CO2 from fossil fuel combustion. And let me point out that CO2 released from sequestration by warming caused by CO2 increases, is still warming that would not have happened without the GHG buildup and one that can be controlled by controlling GHG emissions.

What distinction are you trying to make?

Well, if it's so simple, why are the climate models always wrong?

That's not much of a comment, but the answer is that they're models making approximations of enormously complex systems. They do amazingly well considering the challenges.

ps: it's ignorant to say they are "wrong".

Wow, don't think I've seen so much spin from a Tilt-A-Whirl.

If the systems are so complex, how can you be so certain that your models contain all the necessary inputs, to lead to any definitive conclusion that CO2 is at the root of climate change?

This should be good.

 

[Abraham3]

Well, if it's so simple, why are the climate models always wrong?

That's not much of a comment, but the answer is that they're models making approximations of enormously complex systems. They do amazingly well considering the challenges.

ps: it's ignorant to say they are "wrong".

Wow, don't think I've seen so much spin from a Tilt-A-Whirl.

If the systems are so complex, how can you be so certain that your models contain all the necessary inputs, to lead to any definitive conclusion that CO2 is at the root of climate change?

This should be good.

They contain as many parameters at as fine a resolution as the systems are capable of handling. We can have confidence in their capabilities when their authors are able to use them to reproduce past climate behavior with reasonable accuracy.

One need not go to models to conclude that increased CO2 in the atmosphere will increase temperature. That conclusion first appeared in the late 1700s.

 

[flacaltenn]

That's not much of a comment, but the answer is that they're models making approximations of enormously complex systems. They do amazingly well considering the challenges.

ps: it's ignorant to say they are "wrong".

Wow, don't think I've seen so much spin from a Tilt-A-Whirl.

If the systems are so complex, how can you be so certain that your models contain all the necessary inputs, to lead to any definitive conclusion that CO2 is at the root of climate change?

This should be good.

They contain as many parameters at as fine a resolution as the systems are capable of handling. We can have confidence in their capabilities when their authors are able to use them to reproduce past climate behavior with reasonable accuracy.

One need not go to models to conclude that increased CO2 in the atmosphere will increase temperature. That conclusion first appeared in the late 1700s.

It's simpler than that. Climate Science is a YOUNG, immature science with too much media attention.. The emphasis on the models derives from the NEED to be relevent to Public Policy. So the models FAIL because ((as WestWall said)), there is little attention paid to the MEASUREMENT and VALIDATION of the key parameters that the models munch on.

The PRODUCT of these models aren't designed for science, they are designed to produce silly GLOBAL AVERAGES for the purposes of IPCC conferences and media relations. Thus even KEY parameters like the atmos residency time of CO2, the "climate sensitivity" numbers, and all of the Earth's key REGIONAL thermal and climate components are "averaged out" instead of being nailed for completeness.. It's a clusterfuck of public relations instead of quantification and clarification..

And its ALL about CO2.. Except that we STILL DONT know much more SPECIFIC NUMBERS about the "carbon cycle" than we did in the 70s and 80s.. It's not about how the Climate works ---- that's for certain..

 

[daveman]

More evidence here and now than at any other time and place in the planet's history.

The amount of CO2 released by humans is calculable from simple bookkeeping and by isotopic analysis that quantifies CO2 from fossil fuel combustion. And let me point out that CO2 released from sequestration by warming caused by CO2 increases, is still warming that would not have happened without the GHG buildup and one that can be controlled by controlling GHG emissions.

What distinction are you trying to make?

Well, if it's so simple, why are the climate models always wrong?

That's not much of a comment, but the answer is that they're models making approximations of enormously complex systems. They do amazingly well considering the challenges.

ps: it's ignorant to say they are "wrong".

Not when they're wrong, it's not.

 

[daveman]

More evidence here and now than at any other time and place in the planet's history.

The amount of CO2 released by humans is calculable from simple bookkeeping and by isotopic analysis that quantifies CO2 from fossil fuel combustion. And let me point out that CO2 released from sequestration by warming caused by CO2 increases, is still warming that would not have happened without the GHG buildup and one that can be controlled by controlling GHG emissions.

What distinction are you trying to make?

Then why can't you present anything that is measurable? Why is climatology, as a science, resorting to pseudo-scientific methods to try and push its agenda?

Why do you waste so much of our time posting falsehoods?

Odd...I was going to ask you the same thing.

 

[daveman]

That's not much of a comment, but the answer is that they're models making approximations of enormously complex systems. They do amazingly well considering the challenges.

ps: it's ignorant to say they are "wrong".

Wow, don't think I've seen so much spin from a Tilt-A-Whirl.

If the systems are so complex, how can you be so certain that your models contain all the necessary inputs, to lead to any definitive conclusion that CO2 is at the root of climate change?

This should be good.

They contain as many parameters at as fine a resolution as the systems are capable of handling. We can have confidence in their capabilities when their authors are able to use them to reproduce past climate behavior with reasonable accuracy.

One need not go to models to conclude that increased CO2 in the atmosphere will increase temperature. That conclusion first appeared in the late 1700s.

Only the models can't hindcast worth a damn.

Climate models aren?t good enough to hindcast, says new study | Watts Up With That?

Predictably, you will lose your shit over the source.

And that will, of course, be an admission that you can't refute what the cited study says.

 

[orogenicman]

Wow, don't think I've seen so much spin from a Tilt-A-Whirl.

If the systems are so complex, how can you be so certain that your models contain all the necessary inputs, to lead to any definitive conclusion that CO2 is at the root of climate change?

This should be good.

They contain as many parameters at as fine a resolution as the systems are capable of handling. We can have confidence in their capabilities when their authors are able to use them to reproduce past climate behavior with reasonable accuracy.

One need not go to models to conclude that increased CO2 in the atmosphere will increase temperature. That conclusion first appeared in the late 1700s.

Only the models can't hindcast worth a damn.

Climate models aren?t good enough to hindcast, says new study | Watts Up With That?

Predictably, you will lose your shit over the source.

And that will, of course, be an admission that you can't refute what the cited study says.

Anthony Watt? really? That title is a bit misleading, isn't it? Of course it is, since the very first sentence makes the admission that a few models "were able to reproduce the observed changes in extreme precipitation in China over the last 50 years". Next.

 

[Old Rocks]

Watt, Monkton, and the other posiers are that only thing the dingbats have left. When the whole of the scientific establishment is stating there is a problem, kind of leaves them without any valid sources. But then, lack of validity or veracity in their arguements have never been a problem for these people.

 

[daveman]

They contain as many parameters at as fine a resolution as the systems are capable of handling. We can have confidence in their capabilities when their authors are able to use them to reproduce past climate behavior with reasonable accuracy.

One need not go to models to conclude that increased CO2 in the atmosphere will increase temperature. That conclusion first appeared in the late 1700s.

Only the models can't hindcast worth a damn.

Climate models aren?t good enough to hindcast, says new study | Watts Up With That?

Predictably, you will lose your shit over the source.

And that will, of course, be an admission that you can't refute what the cited study says.

Anthony Watt? really? That title is a bit misleading, isn't it? Of course it is, since the very first sentence makes the admission that a few models "were able to reproduce the observed changes in extreme precipitation in China over the last 50 years". Next.

You should have kept reading.

“The results show that climate models give a poor reflection of the actual changes in extreme precipitation events that took place in China between 1961 and 2000,” he says. “Only half of the 21 analysed climate models analysed were able to reproduce the changes in some regions of China. Few models can well reproduce the nationwide change.”​

 

[daveman]

Watt, Monkton, and the other posiers are that only thing the dingbats have left. When the whole of the scientific establishment is stating there is a problem, kind of leaves them without any valid sources. But then, lack of validity or veracity in their arguements have never been a problem for these people.

Ummm...Watt didn't conduct the study I just cited. It was Tinghai Ou from the University of Gothenburg’s Department of Earth Sciences.

Your dismissal of Watt is meaningless. Just like you.

 

[flacaltenn]

They contain as many parameters at as fine a resolution as the systems are capable of handling. We can have confidence in their capabilities when their authors are able to use them to reproduce past climate behavior with reasonable accuracy.

One need not go to models to conclude that increased CO2 in the atmosphere will increase temperature. That conclusion first appeared in the late 1700s.

Only the models can't hindcast worth a damn.

Climate models aren?t good enough to hindcast, says new study | Watts Up With That?

Predictably, you will lose your shit over the source.

And that will, of course, be an admission that you can't refute what the cited study says.

Anthony Watt? really? That title is a bit misleading, isn't it? Of course it is, since the very first sentence makes the admission that a few models "were able to reproduce the observed changes in extreme precipitation in China over the last 50 years". Next.

This must be your favorite time of year then. When all the fraud future seers come out and make 20 predictions for 2014. And if ONE of them ends up correct -- That ensures they will get airtime NEXT year to make the 2015 predictions...

 

[Abraham3]

Hindcasting is the single most important criteria for a model. All models in widespread use have exhibited the ability to perform satisfactory hindcasts. I am certain that they will all fail under certain conditions, but life's a bitch. Models operated within their own, known constraints produce satisfactory data.

You know all that to be true. Why do you try to argue otherwise?

 

[flacaltenn]

Hindcasting for climate models driven primarily by CO2 ought NOT to work by definition. Because the farther u go back, the less significance that parameter has to the climate. (At least the man caused part) OR you find that CO2 becomes a RESULT of temperature instead of a driver.. More immature science frow AGW..

 

[daveman]

Hindcasting is the single most important criteria for a model. All models in widespread use have exhibited the ability to perform satisfactory hindcasts. I am certain that they will all fail under certain conditions, but life's a bitch. Models operated within their own, known constraints produce satisfactory data.

You know all that to be true. Why do you try to argue otherwise?

But it's NOT true.

New peer reviewed paper shows just how bad the climate models really are | Watts Up With That?

Selected sections of the entire paper, from the Hydrological Sciences Journal is available online here as HTML, and as PDF ~1.3MB are given below:

A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data

Anagnostopoulos, G. G. , Koutsoyiannis, D. , Christofides, A. , Efstratiadis, A. and Mamassis, N. ‘A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data’, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 55:7, 1094 – 1110

Abstract



We compare the output of various climate models to temperature and precipitation observations at 55 points around the globe. We also spatially aggregate model output and observations over the contiguous USA using data from 70 stations, and we perform comparison at several temporal scales, including a climatic (30-year) scale. Besides confirming the findings of a previous assessment study that model projections at point scale are poor, results show that the spatially integrated projections are also poor.

Citation Anagnostopoulos, G. G., Koutsoyiannis, D., Christofides, A., Efstratiadis, A. & Mamassis, N. (2010) A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data. Hydrol. Sci. J. 55(7), 1094-1110.

--

CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

It is claimed that GCMs provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above. Examining the local performance of the models at 55 points, we found that local projections do not correlate well with observed measurements. Furthermore, we found that the correlation at a large spatial scale, i.e. the contiguous USA, is worse than at the local scale.​

Why do you try to argue otherwise?