Think Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant?

[orogenicman]

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.”
​

But then, actual changes in extreme precipitation events is only a part of what most long-term climate models are intended to reproduce/predict. And knowing the limitations of models is not a bad thing - it is the only way we can improve them. Moreover, the author seems to believe that models that were intended to represent broad global changes over the long-term should somehow be accepted for regional short-term "nationwide change” studies? Really? Are you sure about that?

 

[orogenicman]

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...

You should put the bottle down before you fall down.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.”
​

But then, actual changes in extreme precipitation events is only a part of what most long-term climate models are intended to reproduce/predict. And knowing the limitations of models is not a bad thing - it is the only way we can improve them.

The BETTER way to improve to them is to stop pretending that the entire Earth is one Climate zone, learn the physical mechanisms for moving heat and changing weather, strengthen our knowledge of key variables, and to stop pretending that the most important element of Climate Change is man-made CO2..

 

[HelenaHandbag]

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.

Jump from the Tilt-A-Whirl to the Scrambler.

Deal with it, you can't possibly account for all possible germane inputs and cause-effect relationships.

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.

We're talking about de minimus increase in CO2. Not even so much as a 1% change in the total ratio.

 

[orogenicman]

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.”
​

But then, actual changes in extreme precipitation events is only a part of what most long-term climate models are intended to reproduce/predict. And knowing the limitations of models is not a bad thing - it is the only way we can improve them.

The BETTER way to improve to them is to stop pretending that the entire Earth is one Climate zone, learn the physical mechanisms for moving heat and changing weather, strengthen our knowledge of key variables, and to stop pretending that the most important element of Climate Change is man-made CO2..

No one is pretending that the Earth is a "one climate zone". That is a ridiculous accusation. That said, we do understand quite well that the solar system itself is divided into "zones", and that the one we are in constitutes the only Known habitable zone in our system, one we'd like to see continue to be viable for future species and future human generations. And so in order to better plan for the future in this global economy, but know the Earth's relation with the rest of the solar system, we need to understand it as a whole. That is one of the reasons why we study the Earth's climate system as a whole. But you knew that, right?

Man-made CO2 emissions cannot be ignored, however much you wish that were the case. Those emissions are among the few variables that directly affect our climate that we CAN CONTROL. Now, however apparent it is that you desire that we not control our own pollution, you aren't the only fucker who lives on this planet. We do concede, however, that you get 1 out of 6.5 billion votes on the matter. Congratulations.

 

[flacaltenn]

But then, actual changes in extreme precipitation events is only a part of what most long-term climate models are intended to reproduce/predict. And knowing the limitations of models is not a bad thing - it is the only way we can improve them.

The BETTER way to improve to them is to stop pretending that the entire Earth is one Climate zone, learn the physical mechanisms for moving heat and changing weather, strengthen our knowledge of key variables, and to stop pretending that the most important element of Climate Change is man-made CO2..

No one is pretending that the Earth is a "one climate zone". That is a ridiculous accusation. That said, we do understand quite well that the solar system itself is divided into "zones", and that the one we are in constitutes the only Known habitable zone in our system, one we'd like to see continue to be viable for future species and future human generations. And so in order to better plan for the future in this global economy, but know the Earth's relation with the rest of the solar system, we need to understand it as a whole. That is one of the reasons why we study the Earth's climate system as a whole. But you knew that, right?

You can't be serious.. What does the IPCC with the "climate sensitivity" number that describes how the Planet responds to a thermal forcing function.. THey FUCKING AVERAGE IT in order to broadcast an official number.. ONE NUMBER.. Regardless of whether it's desert or rainforest or Arctic or Tropics or Summer or Winter.. Same with the silly juvenile emphasis on BREATHLESSLY promoting that stupid ass SINGLE NUMBER of "Mean Annual Global Surface Temperature" that tells you NOTHING about how the climate is responding to thermal stimulus.. Gimmeafuckingbreak with your "ridiculous accusations"...

Man-made CO2 emissions cannot be ignored, however much you wish that were the case.
Those emissions are among the few variables that directly affect our climate that we CAN CONTROL. Now, however apparent it is that you desire that we not control our own pollution, you aren't the only fucker who lives on this planet. We do concede, however, that you get 1 out of 6.5 billion votes on the matter. Congratulations.

You certainly can't make the case that I've ever ignored pollution.. It is your crowd of mental midgets that makes it a priority to confuse and confound the 6.5 Billion "voters" of the difference between "carbon emissions" and CO2. And we can no more control the 700 GTON annual NATURAL CO2 exchange with our measly 30Gton than we can control the weather. The ocean uptake is more influenced by weather than it is by man's emissions of CO2. To pretend that CO2 has the same surface warming properties and ocean uptake at the poles as it does at the equator is a Public Relations stunt from the IPCC --- not what the science tells us...

 

[Luddly Neddite]

A lot of global warming deniers claim Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.

I've got an experiment I'd like them to try.

I really want them to try this.

Put your head in a plastic bag and seal it off.

See how long you can live in an atmosphere of Carbon dioxide.

Be careful now ...

Look how well that's worked for Rep and Little Miss Bachmann.

And, their fans.

If Rep Bachmann hadn't gotten caught with her hand in the cookie jar, they'd vote for her again. And, Little Missy Bachmann has been caught multiple times and he/she/it is still raking in the unethical dough.

All of which is further proof that vaccines cause mental retardation.

 

[daveman]

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.”
​

But then, actual changes in extreme precipitation events is only a part of what most long-term climate models are intended to reproduce/predict. And knowing the limitations of models is not a bad thing - it is the only way we can improve them. Moreover, the author seems to believe that models that were intended to represent broad global changes over the long-term should somehow be accepted for regional short-term "nationwide change” studies? Really? Are you sure about that?

You'll have to ask the real scientists who did the study, not the dumbass progs you get your cult talking points from.

 

[orogenicman]

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.”
​

But then, actual changes in extreme precipitation events is only a part of what most long-term climate models are intended to reproduce/predict. And knowing the limitations of models is not a bad thing - it is the only way we can improve them. Moreover, the author seems to believe that models that were intended to represent broad global changes over the long-term should somehow be accepted for regional short-term "nationwide change” studies? Really? Are you sure about that?

You'll have to ask the real scientists who did the study, not the dumbass progs you get your cult talking points from.

So you are saying that you don't know. I could have told you that. All you had to do was ask.

 

[orogenicman]

The BETTER way to improve to them is to stop pretending that the entire Earth is one Climate zone, learn the physical mechanisms for moving heat and changing weather, strengthen our knowledge of key variables, and to stop pretending that the most important element of Climate Change is man-made CO2..

No one is pretending that the Earth is a "one climate zone". That is a ridiculous accusation. That said, we do understand quite well that the solar system itself is divided into "zones", and that the one we are in constitutes the only Known habitable zone in our system, one we'd like to see continue to be viable for future species and future human generations. And so in order to better plan for the future in this global economy, but know the Earth's relation with the rest of the solar system, we need to understand it as a whole. That is one of the reasons why we study the Earth's climate system as a whole. But you knew that, right?

You can't be serious..

I couldn't be more serious.

What does the IPCC with the "climate sensitivity" number that describes how the Planet responds to a thermal forcing function.. THey FUCKING AVERAGE IT in order to broadcast an official number.. ONE NUMBER.. Regardless of whether it's desert or rainforest or Arctic or Tropics or Summer or Winter.. Same with the silly juvenile emphasis on BREATHLESSLY promoting that stupid ass SINGLE NUMBER of "Mean Annual Global Surface Temperature" that tells you NOTHING about how the climate is responding to thermal stimulus.. Gimmeafuckingbreak with your "ridiculous accusations"...

That is like saying that averaging the temperature in any region tells us nothing about the climatic response in that region over time. And that, my friend, is the asinine assertion.

Man-made CO2 emissions cannot be ignored, however much you wish that were the case.
Those emissions are among the few variables that directly affect our climate that we CAN CONTROL. Now, however apparent it is that you desire that we not control our own pollution, you aren't the only fucker who lives on this planet. We do concede, however, that you get 1 out of 6.5 billion votes on the matter. Congratulations.

You certainly can't make the case that I've ever ignored pollution..

Yes I can. You are doing it right now.

It is your crowd of mental midgets that makes it a priority to confuse and confound the 6.5 Billion "voters" of the difference between "carbon emissions" and CO2. And we can no more control the 700 GTON annual NATURAL CO2 exchange with our measly 30Gton than we can control the weather. The ocean uptake is more influenced by weather than it is by man's emissions of CO2. To pretend that CO2 has the same surface warming properties and ocean uptake at the poles as it does at the equator is a Public Relations stunt from the IPCC --- not what the science tells us...

To ignore the facts for political expediency as you do is the hallmark of a crackpot. Congratulations. The fact is that CO2 emissions affect the pole regions far more than it does anywhere else. That you believe that our 30gtons of CO2 emissions released every year is a "measly" amount is as ignorant is it gets. That's what the science tells us.

 

[westwall]

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?

Post a link to one that has please. Just one will be fine.

 

[Abraham3]

CESM | Community Earth System Model

climateprediction.net | The world's largest climate forecasting experiment for the 21st century

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/

EdGCM

CCCma - Welcome

CM2.X Coupled Climate Models

UVic Climate Modelling Group

ETH Climate Science Visuals?s Videos on Vimeo

Climate in Earth History

 

[elektra]

CO2 a pollutant?

Why must Green Energy advocates and Global Warming advocates misuse, redefine or obfuscate the meaning of words.

 

[orogenicman]

CO2 a pollutant?

Yes.

Why must Green Energy advocates and Global Warming advocates misuse, redefine or obfuscate the meaning of words.

Strawman argument. It is not a misuse, redefinition or an obfuscation to call a pollutant a pollutant.

 

[westwall]

CESM | Community Earth System Model

climateprediction.net | The world's largest climate forecasting experiment for the 21st century

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/

EdGCM

CCCma - Welcome

CM2.X Coupled Climate Models

UVic Climate Modelling Group

ETH Climate Science Visuals?s Videos on Vimeo

Climate in Earth History

Not one of those has ever completed a successful hindcast idiot. Posting a list of failed computer models is amusing but who are you trying to bullshit.

 

[westwall]

CO2 a pollutant?

Yes.

Why must Green Energy advocates and Global Warming advocates misuse, redefine or obfuscate the meaning of words.

Strawman argument. It is not a misuse, redefinition or an obfuscation to call a pollutant a pollutant.

Of course it is. CO2 is THE fundamental building block of life on this planet. Not just a little life...ALL life. If you were to lower the atmospheric concentration to 200 ppm life would die. C'mon olfraud I thought you had more brains than that. Oh and you might as well drop the oroman sock.. We know who you are.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

CO2 a pollutant?

Yes.

Why must Green Energy advocates and Global Warming advocates misuse, redefine or obfuscate the meaning of words.

Strawman argument. It is not a misuse, redefinition or an obfuscation to call a pollutant a pollutant.

oh man you are a stellar debater, you knocked that flamer out of the ball park, but would you kindly explain what a straw man is? Also did you know that without that thing that you call a pollutant plant life would not have food?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

CESM | Community Earth System Model

climateprediction.net | The world's largest climate forecasting experiment for the 21st century

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/

EdGCM

CCCma - Welcome

CM2.X Coupled Climate Models

UVic Climate Modelling Group

ETH Climate Science Visuals?s Videos on Vimeo

Climate in Earth History

Fakegate: The Obnoxious Fabrication of Global Warming - Forbes

 

[elektra]

CO2 a pollutant?

Yes.

Why must Green Energy advocates and Global Warming advocates misuse, redefine or obfuscate the meaning of words.

Strawman argument. It is not a misuse, redefinition or an obfuscation to call a pollutant a pollutant.

Strawman argument? I was not debating, just pointing out the facts, fact being if you must use coal, oil, fossil fuels to make your product, you can not call yourself Green. Take the idea that Solar Power is infinite, free, easy to produce, Solar Power is extremely expensive, takes lots of dollars, each dollar spent comes with its own carbon footprint, which is completely ignored. More money means much more pollution. Further we are using more money to produce less energy, seems that Solar Power is counter productive.

Seems pretty stupid to not take into consideration that the fossil energy used to produce and manufacture "Clean Green Energy" could used directly by consumers.

Its like making a copy of a copy of a copy, each time it takes more work, more energy, and the final product is weaker, not as good as the original.

We take fossil energy to make Solar Panels that will in turn make energy and we are to believe this saves energy? Pure nonsense. We are suppose to ignore all the CO2 wasted making Solar Panels? Somehow by converting Fossil fuels into Solar Panels and then waiting for the Sun to come up saves energy?

Misuse of words, obfuscating facts, outright lies, fraud, all to convince Americans that CO2 is a pollutant and Green Energy does not stink.

 

[orogenicman]

CO2 a pollutant?

Yes.

Why must Green Energy advocates and Global Warming advocates misuse, redefine or obfuscate the meaning of words.

Strawman argument. It is not a misuse, redefinition or an obfuscation to call a pollutant a pollutant.

Strawman argument? I was not debating,

Actually, you were asking a question but forgot to add the question mark at the end. But your question assumes that CO2 is not a pollutant, which is incorrect.

...just pointing out the facts, fact being if you must use coal, oil, fossil fuels to make your product, you can not call yourself Green.

While it is true that the manufacturing process requires energy, it doesn't not require that energy derived from carbon be that source.

Take the idea that Solar Power is infinite, free, easy to produce, Solar Power is extremely expensive, takes lots of dollars, each dollar spent comes with its own carbon footprint, which is completely ignored.

On the contrary, solar power have never been less expensive, and will only become cheaper as more facilities come online. Moreover, it will ALWAYS be less polluting than any other source, and that is something you apparently choose to ignore.

More money means much more pollution. Further we are using more money to produce less energy, seems that Solar Power is counter productive.

Not really. The energy source is free, and doesn't pollute.

Seems pretty stupid to not take into consideration that the fossil energy used to produce and manufacture "Clean Green Energy" could used directly by consumers.

Using coal and oil as an energy source, though convenient, has always be extremely wasteful and polluting. There are far better uses of these products than energy production.

We take fossil energy to make Solar Panels that will in turn make energy and we are to believe this saves energy? Pure nonsense.

What is pure nonsense, and stupid is the notion that we must use fossil fuel-derived energy to make solar panels. The energy can come from any source, such as hydroelectric, wind, or even - wait for it - solar panels.

We are suppose to ignore all the CO2 wasted making Solar Panels?

What you willfully ignore is the fact that solar panel energy production produces little, if any, CO2 emissions, and can be made virtually CO2 - free by taking carbon energy completely out of the production cycle.

Misuse of words, obfuscating facts, outright lies, fraud, all to convince Americans that CO2 is a pollutant and Green Energy does not stink.

You are confusing what we do with what you are doing. Why am I not surprised?