UH OH Spaghetti Oh! Hansen says the temps have been flat!

[Koios]

You're not qualified to make that analysis of them; and they were models created by people eminently qualified to do so. That should tell you something.

No they aren't. They are created by computer scientists with a very poor understanding of themodynamics.

I asked you what would falsify the AGW hypothesis. Is there a reason you didn't answer?

Yeah they are. In fact, find a list of the 100 most respected / published / acclaimed climatologists on the planet. Then see if even one is among the MGW-denier list.

Should tell you something.

 

[Koios]

I haven't the foggiest. It was homework I assigned to you and not myself.

But I already know that Climatogology is not a soft science. So if it's on a list, anywhere, the list was compiled by some right wing blogger that's a fucking retard.

That help?

Meteorology is a hard science, not climatolgy. The fact that you believe it is, speaks volumes. Take a look sometime at the course requirements for a degree in climatology, then look at the requirements for a degree in chemistry, physics, geology, astrophysics, etc, and then see if you still believe it is a hard science. If you do after having looked at the requirements for the degree, then you simply aren't very bright.

You're exactly wrong. Want to be a metorologist, and certified? Here's a bonus: do you look nice on TV? Next, take a multiple guess test, and see how easy it is to pass, pay the fee and be a REAL meterologist!!!

 

[SSDD]

Yeah they are. In fact, find a list of the 100 most respected / published / acclaimed climatologists on the planet. Then see if even one is among the MGW-denier list.

Should tell you something.

What an honor that must be...to be on the list of 100 of the most respected pseudoscientists on the planet.

And no, the models are written by computer science geeks with very poor understanding of thermodynamics....which they probably got from climate scientists with equally poor understanding of thermodynamics.


All those models that you guys respect so much represent the earth as a flat disk, that does not rotate and is bathed in a weak twilight 24 hours a day in whcih energy within the system moves entirely via radiation.....tell me how you believe such a representation of earth could possibly produce output that accurately represents reality.

 

[SSDD]

You're exactly wrong. Want to be a metorologist, and certified? Here's a bonus: do you look nice on TV? Next, take a multiple guess test, and see how easy it is to pass, pay the fee and be a REAL meterologist!!!

Guess you have never looked up the course requirements for eithen climatologist or meteorologist. A meteorologist is far better educated than a climatologist. Hell, you only need one semester of calculus to be a climatologist...if you want to be a meteorologist, you need 3 semesters. The same holds true in physics, and chemistry.

 

[Koios]

Yeah they are. In fact, find a list of the 100 most respected / published / acclaimed climatologists on the planet. Then see if even one is among the MGW-denier list.

Should tell you something.

What an honor that must be...to be on the list of 100 of the most respected pseudoscientists on the planet.

And no, the models are written by computer science geeks with very poor understanding of thermodynamics....which they probably got from climate scientists with equally poor understanding of thermodynamics.


All those models that you guys respect so much represent the earth as a flat disk, that does not rotate and is bathed in a weak twilight 24 hours a day in whcih energy within the system moves entirely via radiation.....tell me how you believe such a representation of earth could possibly produce output that accurately represents reality.

I think you've just characterized the MGW-denialist scientists to a fucking tee.

But note I said, "respected / published / acclaimed." That's a bit more credible measure of one's scientific credibility.

 

[Koios]

You're exactly wrong. Want to be a metorologist, and certified? Here's a bonus: do you look nice on TV? Next, take a multiple guess test, and see how easy it is to pass, pay the fee and be a REAL meterologist!!!

Guess you have never looked up the course requirements for eithen climatologist or meteorologist. A meteorologist is far better educated than a climatologist. Hell, you only need one semester of calculus to be a climatologist...if you want to be a meteorologist, you need 3 semesters. The same holds true in physics, and chemistry.

Really? What is the educational background of the meterologist on your favorite local news channel?

 

[RollingThunder]

You're exactly wrong. Want to be a metorologist, and certified? Here's a bonus: do you look nice on TV? Next, take a multiple guess test, and see how easy it is to pass, pay the fee and be a REAL meterologist!!!

Guess you have never looked up the course requirements for eithen climatologist or meteorologist. A meteorologist is far better educated than a climatologist. Hell, you only need one semester of calculus to be a climatologist...if you want to be a meteorologist, you need 3 semesters. The same holds true in physics, and chemistry.

Parroting the lies of your cult only strengthens the impression that you are a clueless retard.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

So just to point out the obvious - you did not answer my questions.

So you have presented absoliutely no reason whatsoever why climate change conducted by Finnish scientists should be ignored, and have no evidence that funding in Finland is in any way connected to the results of that research. (It isn't, btw.)

If you are actually genuinely interested in this topic, this is the point where you realise that your global conspiracy theory doesn't add up.

 

[westwall]

Of course. Climatologists, doing real hard fact science, would be the first to tell you that climate is too fucking dynamic, bordering on pure chaos, and that even though they do real science and are real scientists, their projections are merely that, and based on scientifically-based assumptions.

But to suggest, as one did, that it's soft science, merely exposes that poster's abject ignorance of what science is and is not.

No, their assumptions are based on very poorly written computer models that ignore water vapor or worse, assume it is a positive forcer when it has been shown to be a NEGATIVE forcer. There is nothing exact about the way they do their science.

You're not qualified to make that analysis of them; and they were models created by people eminently qualified to do so. That should tell you something.

Something else telling, if indeed you are a geologist: you know that outside of academia, the bulk of employment opps for geologists is the fosil fuels industry, which in turn funds many of the studies in academia. They're the main employer of geologists. So it's pretty fucking telling when MGW-denialist scientists and nearly exclusively geologists. Yeah?

Actually, yes I am....and have done so on many occasions. As far as your comments regarding who geologists work for......

"The largest number of geologists are employed in the fossil fuels industry. State and Federal governments hire many geologists performing duties in research, regulatory functions and teaching. After gaining experience and a good reputation, many geologists go into private practice as consultants. Dwindling energy, mineral and water resources, increased environmental concerns present challenging careers for geologists. At the present, employment opportunities are the best in the environmental and geotechnical areas."

This is from a University website. I work mainly with government geologists and with academia. When I first got started, the company I would eventully do the majority of my environmental work with (Dames & Moore), wanted me to work in the oil world for a time to learn the ropes from the other side so I worked for BP for two years getting the experience my future bosses wanted me to have so I know that world too.

My point is all of this is that the oil companies are winding down their use of geologists. They will keep a few of the dinosaurs around but there is very little need for new ones. That's why the environmental field is the new happy hunting ground for geologists and why many have jumped on the AGW bandwagon.

I am all in favor of getting us off of oil, but the AGW movement gets more money from Big Oil than the sceptics do. Do your own research and you'll see I am telling the truth. Or don't and remain ignorant...I frankly don't care.

 

[westwall]

You're exactly wrong. Want to be a metorologist, and certified? Here's a bonus: do you look nice on TV? Next, take a multiple guess test, and see how easy it is to pass, pay the fee and be a REAL meterologist!!!

Guess you have never looked up the course requirements for eithen climatologist or meteorologist. A meteorologist is far better educated than a climatologist. Hell, you only need one semester of calculus to be a climatologist...if you want to be a meteorologist, you need 3 semesters. The same holds true in physics, and chemistry.

Really? What is the educational background of the meterologist on your favorite local news channel?

My favorite meteorologist has a degree in geology and chemistry plus he was a Rhodes Scolar quarter finalist. He doesn't have a meteorology degree however. He did serve as a consulting meteorologist to the Nevada Dept. of Transportation so they didn't seem to think that was a detriment.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

So just to point out the obvious - you did not answer my questions.

So you have presented absoliutely no reason whatsoever why climate change conducted by Finnish scientists should be ignored, and have no evidence that funding in Finland is in any way connected to the results of that research. (It isn't, btw.)

If you are actually genuinely interested in this topic, this is the point where you realise that your global conspiracy theory doesn't add up.

It is you who hasn't ansered the questions. I asked you what source they use in Finland for temperature data outside the borders of Finland. They don't have a worldwide surface stations network so they must get the data from outside thier borders from somewhere.....who do the get it from.

And you don't have the first clue as to whether or not money has corrupted the climate service in your country...faith does not make it true. Imagine, Finland's scientists don't get grant money for research.

 

[asterism]

Yeah they are. In fact, find a list of the 100 most respected / published / acclaimed climatologists on the planet. Then see if even one is among the MGW-denier list.

Should tell you something.

What an honor that must be...to be on the list of 100 of the most respected pseudoscientists on the planet.

And no, the models are written by computer science geeks with very poor understanding of thermodynamics....which they probably got from climate scientists with equally poor understanding of thermodynamics.


All those models that you guys respect so much represent the earth as a flat disk, that does not rotate and is bathed in a weak twilight 24 hours a day in whcih energy within the system moves entirely via radiation.....tell me how you believe such a representation of earth could possibly produce output that accurately represents reality.

Which models are those? Be specific please.

 

[asterism]

Of course. Climatologists, doing real hard fact science, would be the first to tell you that climate is too fucking dynamic, bordering on pure chaos, and that even though they do real science and are real scientists, their projections are merely that, and based on scientifically-based assumptions.

But to suggest, as one did, that it's soft science, merely exposes that poster's abject ignorance of what science is and is not.

No, their assumptions are based on very poorly written computer models that ignore water vapor or worse, assume it is a positive forcer when it has been shown to be a NEGATIVE forcer. There is nothing exact about the way they do their science.

You're not qualified to make that analysis of them; and they were models created by people eminently qualified to do so. That should tell you something.

Something else telling, if indeed you are a geologist: you know that outside of academia, the bulk of employment opps for geologists is the fosil fuels industry, which in turn funds many of the studies in academia. They're the main employer of geologists. So it's pretty fucking telling when MGW-denialist scientists and nearly exclusively geologists. Yeah?

Which models are those? Please list the qualifications of those who created them.

 

[SSDD]

Which models are those? Be specific please.

All. Trenberth's energy budget is the energy budget upon which the entire AGW bandwagon is based. There are models out there that don't operate on that budget and which do a pretty good job at predicting temperature, but the don't take CO2 into consideration so according to the present paradigm, they can't be right even though they do a better job than any of the models being used by the consensus.

 

[SSDD]

Which models are those? Please list the qualifications of those who created them.

Considering the rate of failure, the qualifications of those who create them is really a moot point isn't it? Clearly either their qualifications, or the knowledge base required to model something as complex as our climate aren't enough.

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds more evidence of the 'poor performance' of climate models
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Paper shows climate models underestimate cooling effect from clouds by a factor of 4
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds why weather & climate models are so often wrong
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Study Finds "Huge Discrepancy" Between Hard Data and Warming Models
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds climate models are unable to reproduce ENSO and other teleconnections
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds climate models exaggerate projected warming
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Settled science: New paper finds where winds come from
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Top 10 Reasons Why Climate Model Predictions are False
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Paper: Models lead to overly confident climate predictions
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: The 76 trillion dollar computer game
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Antarctic sea ice reaches record high while IPCC models predicted the opposite
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds climate computer models exaggerate global warming and don't reproduce Pacific Ocean oscillations

 

[asterism]

Which models are those? Be specific please.

All. Trenberth's energy budget is the energy budget upon which the entire AGW bandwagon is based. There are models out there that don't operate on that budget and which do a pretty good job at predicting temperature, but the don't take CO2 into consideration so according to the present paradigm, they can't be right even though they do a better job than any of the models being used by the consensus.

I ask because that one wasn't written by anyone remotely qualified. No training in statistics, no training in software development, no training in data integrity and extremely piss poor coding in general.

Which models are those? Please list the qualifications of those who created them.

Considering the rate of failure, the qualifications of those who create them is really a moot point isn't it? Clearly either their qualifications, or the knowledge base required to model something as complex as our climate aren't enough.

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds more evidence of the 'poor performance' of climate models
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Paper shows climate models underestimate cooling effect from clouds by a factor of 4
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds why weather & climate models are so often wrong
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Study Finds "Huge Discrepancy" Between Hard Data and Warming Models
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds climate models are unable to reproduce ENSO and other teleconnections
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds climate models exaggerate projected warming
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Settled science: New paper finds where winds come from
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Top 10 Reasons Why Climate Model Predictions are False
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Paper: Models lead to overly confident climate predictions
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: The 76 trillion dollar computer game
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Antarctic sea ice reaches record high while IPCC models predicted the opposite
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds climate computer models exaggerate global warming and don't reproduce Pacific Ocean oscillations

The qualifications do matter because a PhD in Physics (or Geology, Analytical Chemisty, etc.) doesn't qualify anyone to write software.

Did you read the Climategate stuff? The HARRY_READ_ME file was hilarious. The poor intern tasked with writing the model was absolutely clueless.

 

[Koios]

No, their assumptions are based on very poorly written computer models that ignore water vapor or worse, assume it is a positive forcer when it has been shown to be a NEGATIVE forcer. There is nothing exact about the way they do their science.

You're not qualified to make that analysis of them; and they were models created by people eminently qualified to do so. That should tell you something.

Something else telling, if indeed you are a geologist: you know that outside of academia, the bulk of employment opps for geologists is the fosil fuels industry, which in turn funds many of the studies in academia. They're the main employer of geologists. So it's pretty fucking telling when MGW-denialist scientists and nearly exclusively geologists. Yeah?

Which models are those? Please list the qualifications of those who created them.

The exact same ones that some righty retard said were flawed. Check with him/her.

 

[SSDD]

I ask because that one wasn't written by anyone remotely qualified. No training in statistics, no training in software development, no training in data integrity and extremely piss poor coding in general.

Trenberth's energy budget isn't a software model genius...it represents the physics upon which the models climate science is presently using are based.

Did you read the Climategate stuff? The HARRY_READ_ME file was hilarious. The poor intern tasked with writing the model was absolutely clueless.

Not with any particular interest. Note all of the above papers documenting the abject failure of the current crop of computer models are peer reviewed and published in prominent journals.

 

[asterism]

You're not qualified to make that analysis of them; and they were models created by people eminently qualified to do so. That should tell you something.

Something else telling, if indeed you are a geologist: you know that outside of academia, the bulk of employment opps for geologists is the fosil fuels industry, which in turn funds many of the studies in academia. They're the main employer of geologists. So it's pretty fucking telling when MGW-denialist scientists and nearly exclusively geologists. Yeah?

Which models are those? Please list the qualifications of those who created them.

The exact same ones that some righty retard said were flawed. Check with him/her.

You claimed that the creators were "eminently qualified," so list these qualifications.

Or do you think no expertise in software development is required to write a computer model?

 

[asterism]

I ask because that one wasn't written by anyone remotely qualified. No training in statistics, no training in software development, no training in data integrity and extremely piss poor coding in general.

Trenberth's energy budget isn't a software model genius...it represents the physics upon which the models climate science is presently using are based.

Did you read the Climategate stuff? The HARRY_READ_ME file was hilarious. The poor intern tasked with writing the model was absolutely clueless.

Not with any particular interest. Note all of the above papers documenting the abject failure of the current crop of computer models are peer reviewed and published in prominent journals.

True.

However you are incorrect, Trenberth's Energy Budget most certainly was made using computer models. Software written by people with no formal education nor training in software development.