• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

Status
Not open for further replies.
aleCcowaN said:
It's an explanation of his/her endorsement which would be nice. People can't just go through life googling, cutting and pasting things just because that pleases their expectations and call it participation in a scientific discussion in a forum. Specially when would-be lectures about what science is and is not are gratuitously provided with the endorsements as a side dish.
Click to expand...

I think your are all Butthurt because I've shown just how badly the Climate Models have failed to accurately predict Global Temperature and it's getting worse! According to John Christy's (University of Alabama - Huntsville) presentation given to the US Congress, Not only are the models bad, they don't even agree the basic mechanisms that are driving climate! His testimony to congress is presented here along with a chart of the failed model runs: http://docs.house.gov/meetings/SY/SY18/20131211/101589/HHRG-113-SY18-Wstate-ChristyJ-20131211.pdf

I urge people to read this testimony and to remember that it was given before Congress: an entity to whom Lying or BS'ing is a CRIMINAL OFFENSE! But, whether you elect to read it or not, I think you can rest assured that Congress is getting the true story on AGW and Climate Change and, as a result, won't pass any stupid laws on the basis on the flawed Science of Climate Modeling.

Also, Americans remain a practical people in some respects and have properly rated their concern about "Global Warming" pretty far down the list....well below "Air Pollution", Drinking-water Pollution and Toxic Waste (http://www.gallup.com/poll/168236/americans-show-low-levels-concern-global-warming.aspx) So....it doesn't look like Americans are going to be fooled by the AGW Hysterics.

 
Jules Galen said:
I think your are all Butthurt because I've shown just how badly the Climate Models have failed to accurately predict Global Temperature and it's getting worse! According to John Christy's (University of Alabama - Huntsville) presentation given to the US Congress, Not only are the models bad, they don't even agree the basic mechanisms that are driving climate! His testimony to congress is presented here along with a chart of the failed model runs: http://docs.house.gov/meetings/SY/SY18/20131211/101589/HHRG-113-SY18-Wstate-ChristyJ-20131211.pdf

I urge people to read this testimony and to remember that it was given before Congress: an entity to whom Lying or BS'ing is a CRIMINAL OFFENSE! But, whether you elect to read it or not, I think you can rest assured that Congress is getting the true story on AGW and Climate Change and, as a result, won't pass any stupid laws on the basis on the flawed Science of Climate Modeling.

Also, Americans remain a practical people in some respects and have properly rated their concern about "Global Warming" pretty far down the list....well below "Air Pollution", Drinking-water Pollution and Toxic Waste (http://www.gallup.com/poll/168236/americans-show-low-levels-concern-global-warming.aspx) So....it doesn't look like Americans are going to be fooled by the AGW Hysterics.
Click to expand...

yeah politics.
when Christy has a problem with science, he can fight his fight in the scientific literature, but there the deniers are very silent, its only when they can lie to laymen they have a loud mouth. in the scientific literature they are either a total no show or very very silent......

saying stuff in hearing does not make it true, as is evidenced by Monckton and his lies about Dr. Pinkers research.

come back when you have science to present. or atleast when you are willing to adress the points people have brought up..... but you ignore all that and just keep on with your myths from the denier blogosphere.
alot of people in the US are fooled by the ExxonMobile and Koch Industry sponsored myths. gratulations.
 
Last edited:
Jules Galen said:
His testimony to congress is presented here along with a chart of the failed model runs: http://docs.house.gov/meetings/SY/SY18/20131211/101589/HHRG-113-SY18-Wstate-ChristyJ-20131211.pdf

I urge people to read this testimony and to remember that it was given before Congress: an entity to whom Lying or BS'ing is a CRIMINAL OFFENSE!
Click to expand...

I had no idea.

picture.php

source http://docs.house.gov/meetings/SY/SY18/20131211/101589/HHRG-113-SY18-Wstate-ChristyJ-20131211.pdf

But not to worry. I'm sure somebody will explain why we shouldn't listen to this testimony, and how all the facts are wrong, and how they are right, and we should listen to them instead.
 
Last edited:
Consequences....more costly than considered previously

Our current models “grossly underestimate” the economic damage that will be wrought by climate change, according to British climate change economist Lord Nicholas Stern. So he and a colleague just published a new preliminary paper that makes a few key updates.

Right now lots of mainstream climate research, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), relies on versions of the “DICE model” to project the damage climate change will do to the global economy in computer simulations. And so far, the modeling done by IPCC has predicted relatively modest hits to world economic production from climate change if global carbon emissions continue on a business-as-usual path. But the DICE model also has several well-known limitations, including an overly simplistic model of how the economy grows, too little attention to climate sensitivity, and too little attention to certain extreme risks. When Stern and Simon Dietz — colleagues at the London School of Economics’ Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change — retooled the model to address this issues, they found the modest hits ballooned into massive reductions within the next two centuries.
Click to expand...
more
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/16/3449645/stern-updated-climate-model-economic/
 
something about colder winters...??..NOT

Arctic warming linked to fewer European and U.S. cold weather extremes, new study shows
Date:
June 15, 2014
Source:
University of Exeter
Summary:

Climate change is unlikely to lead to more days of extreme cold, similar to those that gripped the United States in a deep freeze last winter, new research has shown. The Arctic amplification phenomenon refers to the faster rate of warming in the Arctic compared to places further south. It is this phenomenon that has been linked to a spike in the number of severe cold spells experienced in recent years over Europe and North America.
Click to expand...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140615143834.htm
 
Jules Galen said:
Yes...lying to congress is Called "Contempt of Congress", and it's bad if ya' get caught doing it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

As a result, I am confident John Christy was on his best behavoir when he spoke to congress.
Click to expand...

It didn't stop Monckton from repeating his lies about Dr. Pinker's research, after Dr. Pinker explained to him how he is misstaken and that the IPCC did correctly represent her research.

not impressed. got any science?
 
Love the pantheon of denier miscreants trotted out..

Climate misinformer: John Christy - Skeptical Science
www.skepticalscience.com/John_Christy_blog.htm
Dr. John Christy is a Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). He has
Click to expand...

John Christy | DeSmogBlog
www.desmogblog.com/john-christy
John R. Christy is a meteorologist at the University of Alabama Huntsville. He is closely associated with climate change skeptic Roy Spencer with whom he ...
Click to expand...

Hmmm Spencer is a creationist .....wonderful quality of dissent...the bible belt sure knows how to produce a chuckle....:rolleyes:
 
Jules Galen said:
I think your are all Butthurt because I've shown just how badly the Climate Models have failed to accurately predict Global Temperature and it's getting worse! According to John Christy's (University of Alabama - Huntsville) presentation given to the US Congress, Not only are the models bad, they don't even agree the basic mechanisms that are driving climate! His testimony to congress is presented here along with a chart of the failed model runs: http://docs.house.gov/meetings/SY/SY18/20131211/101589/HHRG-113-SY18-Wstate-ChristyJ-20131211.pdf

I urge people to read this testimony and to remember that it was given before Congress: an entity to whom Lying or BS'ing is a CRIMINAL OFFENSE! But, whether you elect to read it or not, I think you can rest assured that Congress is getting the true story on AGW and Climate Change and, as a result, won't pass any stupid laws on the basis on the flawed Science of Climate Modeling.

Also, Americans remain a practical people in some respects and have properly rated their concern about "Global Warming" pretty far down the list....well below "Air Pollution", Drinking-water Pollution and Toxic Waste (http://www.gallup.com/poll/168236/americans-show-low-levels-concern-global-warming.aspx) So....it doesn't look like Americans are going to be fooled by the AGW Hysterics.
Click to expand...

Criminal Offense?

"As the global temperature failed to warm over the past 15 years"

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1999/to:2013.9/plot/uah/from:1999/to:2013.9/trend

LOL
his own dataset exposes him as the liar he is
 
Don't play his game - take his type face down from headline level - such puerile tactics.

Especially since he is wrong about American views..

American Opinion on Climate Change Warms Up
American Opinion on Climate Change Warms Up

Public concern about global warming appears to be on the rise again, after a year of significant declines, according to a new national survey conducted by the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication.

Since January, public belief that global warming is happening rose four points, to 61 percent, while belief that it is caused mostly by human activities rose three points, to 50 percent.

The number of Americans who worry about global warming rose three points, to 53 percent. And the number of Americans who said that the issue is personally important to them rose five points, to 63 percent.

- See more at: http://environment.yale.edu/climate...-climate-change-warms-up#sthash.HMyuItnq.dpuf
Click to expand...

snip

87% support funding more research into renewable energy sources (+2)

83% support tax rebates for people who buy fuel-efficient vehicles and solar panels (+1)

77% support regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant (+6)

65% support signing an international treaty that requires the United States to cut its emissions of carbon dioxide 90 percent by the year 2050 (+4)

61% support requiring electric utilities to produce at least 20 percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources, even if it cost the average household an extra $100 per year (+2)

- See more at: http://environment.yale.edu/climate...-climate-change-warms-up#sthash.HMyuItnq.dpuf
Click to expand...

I guess they acknolwedge CO2 traps IR and the consequences that arise from that.
 
Last edited:
Jules Galen said:
When the Global Warming Models FAIL...change the story!
Click to expand...
Perhaps you should learn what the actual climate science is, Jules Galen: Is Global Heating Hiding Out in the Oceans? (Parts of Pacific Warming 15 Times Faster Than in Past 10,000 Years)

When observations and theory how that the ocean contains most of the heat content of the Earth and that heat content is increasing while global surface temperatures are increasing at a slower rate, climate scientists look for reasons for the discrepancy :jaw-dropp!

The Pacific Ocean fills in another piece of the global warming puzzle, and puzzles Curry

Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling
Global Warming’s Missing Heat: Look Back In Anger (and considerable disbelief)…
About a 1979 report that essentially predicted what is going on today :cool:.

Global warming not slowing - it's speeding up

Unprecedented trade wind strength is shifting global warming to the oceans, but for how much longer?
 
Jules Galen said:
And...that's why I call myself a DENIER, for I DENY what the AGW Crowd is doing is Science.
Click to expand...
Do you also call yourself a DENIER, for you DENY what the anti-AGW Crowd is doing is Science, IOW you DENY Science, Jules Galen :rolleyes:!
If not then how do you tell the difference between the "AGW Crowd" and the "anti-AGW Crowd"? Are you just guessing? Are you using some kind of religious reason (God would not do it)? Is it political (I do not want carbon taxes so AGW is not happening)?

The real world facts are that:
There is a thing called climate science.
There are people who are experts in climate science called climate scientists.
97% of climate scientists believe that the scientific evidence is that there is human-callused global warming.
 
There seems to be at least half a dozen different stories at the moment. All of them about the same thing.

No warming in the measurements.
 
Jules Galen said:
Modeling a known is not the same as modeling the unknown:
Click to expand...
Modeling the known laws of physics that govern the behavior of climate is the same as modeling the "unknown": How reliable are climate models?
While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations
Click to expand...
 
r-j said:
There seems to be at least half a dozen different stories at the moment. All of them about the same thing.

No warming in the measurements.
Click to expand...

Your right and it's driving the AGW crowd crazy because this situation has revealed that their precious models have failed. (for some reason I just had a flash of Golem stroking is wring and croaking "My Precious")

Anyways...some blame it on TSI and others on Heat Hiding n the Ocean and some on both....and even some more excuses coming. In fact, I think it would be fun to get a list together of the popular excuses used as to why the Models failed. So far, I have TSI and Ocean Heat...but I am sure there are lots more.
 
Jules Galen said:
Science is not validated by consensus.
Click to expand...
No one says that, Jules Galen.
The 97% confidence in AGW is a confidence, not a validation.
What is validation is the observations matching the physics., e.g. increasing CO2 = increasing global surface temperatures (with internal variations) and this is observed.
What is validation is the ruling out of other causes for the observed global warming, e.g. it is not the Sun because its output has been constant or even decreasing slightly over the last 30-odd years.

An analogy is: You have a sick child. You take them to 100 doctors. 97 doctors say that your child has X. 3 doctors say your child has Y. Which set of doctors do you have confidence in, Jules Galen?
 
Jules Galen said:
Your right and it's driving the AGW crowd crazy because this situation has revealed that their precious models have failed. (for some reason I just had a flash of Golem stroking is wring and croaking "My Precious")

Anyways...some blame it on TSI and others on Heat Hiding n the Ocean and some on both....and even some more excuses coming. In fact, I think it would be fun to get a list together of the popular excuses used as to why the Models failed. So far, I have TSI and Ocean Heat...but I am sure there are lots more.
Click to expand...

any comment on the fact that Christy lied in a congress hearing?
 
Jules Galen said:
As a result of the failure of these models, ...
Click to expand...
Please support this assertion with citations to the failure of "these models", Jules Galen.
(the scientific literature or a credible source citing the scientific literature)

How reliable are climate models?
Very successful at reproducing the past global surface temperatures.
Successful at predicting sea level rises (but worrying because the measured levels are at the high end of the projections).
Likewise for Arctic sea ice extents (good for 1950 - 1990 but now the observations have fallen below the projections).
There are failures but they are really not about what is important to us such as global surface temperatures and seal levels. They indicate gaps in our understanding of climate, e.g. the factors affecting the troposphere.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom