Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[Jules Galen]

Promoting simple critical thinking skills, like analysing the first figure Jules Galen dropped here a couple of days ago, with its manipulation of scales just to show disconnection, is the kind of skill general education should promote everywhere. I would expect that PBS had documentaries like La Era del Ñandú but regarding climate change, or 911 truth, or Apollo hoax.

I think I have done a fair job of showing evidence of how the Global Warming Models have failed. And what's more strange, is that you and your buddies refuse to show how the Global Warming Models have been accurate over the past 20 years. YOU refuse to post evidence because you don't have any - all - every one - of the Global Warming Models form circa 1990s have failed and you know it. Now...a lot of other people know it.

Like I said....show us some model runs from 20 or more years ago (that have not been adjusted for current events - or adjusted for anything else) and that accurately predict the current temperatures. And it is your job to show it, for YOU are claiming Global Warming to be an problem, and YOU are claiming the scientists understand Global Warming.

Your Task is laid out before YOU. When YOU inferred that Scientists had knowledge of Global Warming via Models, YOU tasked yourself to provide evidence. So, YOU have made a claim of knowledge and, as a result, it's up to YOU to show us the evidence.

We await your evidence.

 

[DC]

I think I have done a fair job of showing evidence of how the Global Warming Models have failed. And what's more strange, is that you and your buddies refuse to show how the Global Warming Models have been accurate over the past 20 years. YOU refuse to post evidence because you don't have any - all - every one - of the Global Warming Models form circa 1990s have failed and you know it. Now...a lot of other people know it.

Like I said....show us some model runs from 20 or more years ago (that have not been adjusted for current events - or adjusted for anything else) and that accurately predict the current temperatures. And it is your job to show it, for YOU are claiming Global Warming to be an problem, and YOU are claiming the scientists understand Global Warming.

Your Task is laid out before YOU. When YOU inferred that Scientists had knowledge of Global Warming via Models, YOU tasked yourself to provide evidence. So, YOU have made a claim of knowledge and, as a result, it's up to YOU to show us the evidence.

We await your evidence.

[/SIZE]

"I think I have done a fair job of showing evidence of how the Global Warming Models have failed."
nope, you have not.

also i showed you a paper that shows how you properly compare models to observations and it also shows how well the models actually did.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044035/article

and the hilitet part shows that you know they did well, but you now move the goalposts in a very dishonest way.

you are the one that came here making big claims and up to today failed to provide any evidence for those claims. and in addition to that, you ignore virtually all questions posed to you.
typical denier/CT behavior.

 

[Trakar]

Why We Resist the Truth About Climate Change

A paper to the Climate Controversies: Science and politics conference
Museum of Natural Sciences,
Brussels, 28 October 2010
Clive Hamilton
http://preview.tinyurl.com/kwyzk4j

Let me begin with a pregnant fact about United States’ voters. In 1997 there was virtually no difference between Democratic and Republican voters in their views on global warming, with around half saying warming had begun. In 2008, reflecting the accumulation and dissemination of scientific evidence, the proportion of Democratic voters taking this view had risen from 52 to 76 per cent.2 But the proportion of Republican voters fell from 48 per cent to 42 per cent—a four percent gap had become a 34 per cent gap. What had happened?
The opening of the gulf was due to the fact that Republican Party activists, in collaboration with fossil fuel interests and conservative think tanks, had successfully associated acceptance of global warming science with “liberal” views. In other words, they had activated the human predisposition to adopt views that cement one’s connections with cultural groups that strengthen one’s definition of self. In the 1990s views on global warming were influenced mostly by attentiveness to the science; now one can make a good guess at an American’s opinion on global warming by identifying their views on abortion, same-sex marriage and gun-control…
… Deniers have adroitly used the instruments of democratic practice to erode the authority of professional expertise, including skillful exploitation of a free media, appeal to freedom of information laws, the mobilization of a group of vociferous citizens, and the promotion of their own to public office.14 At least in the United States and Australia, democracy has defeated science.
Innocently pursuing their research, climate scientists were unwittingly destabilizing the political and social order. They could not know that the new facts they were uncovering would threaten the existence of powerful industrialists, compel governments to choose between adhering to science and remaining in power, corrode comfortable expectations about the future, expose hidden resentment of technical and cultural elites and, internationally, shatter the post-colonial growth consensus between North and South. Their research has brought us to one of those rare historical fracture points when knowledge diverges from power, portending a long period of struggle before the two are once more aligned.
… When climate scientists conclude that, even with optimistic assumption about how quickly emissions can be cut, the world is expected to warm by 4°C this century it is too much to bear. Who can believe that within the life-time of a child born today the planet will be hotter than at any time for 15 million years? When scientists say we will cross tipping points leading to chaotic weather for centuries we retreat to incredulity.

An interesting paper with much more fruit within it awaiting harvest beyond the tasty bits I repeated here.

 

[Jules Galen]

"I think I have done a fair job of showing evidence of how the Global Warming Models have failed."
nope, you have not.

also i showed you a paper that shows how you properly compare models to observations and it also shows how well the models actually did.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044035/article

and the hilitet part shows that you know they did well, but you now move the goalposts in a very dishonest way.

you are the one that came here making big claims and up to today failed to provide any evidence for those claims. and in addition to that, you ignore virtually all questions posed to you.
typical denier/CT behavior.

OMFG! What JUNK SCIENCE you have submitted! I ask for a Global Warming Model in the range of 20+ years-old and you give me a paper using Models from 2001 (at the oldest) and plotted against Climate Data that has been "Magically" adjusted to fit the curve.

So...when Climate Data doesn't conform to the Model, then Climate data is altered so it fits the Model....is that the latest "Trick"?

 

[aleCcowaN]

I think I have done a fair job of showing evidence of how the Global Warming Models have failed. And what's more strange, is that you and your buddies refuse to show how the Global Warming Models have been accurate over the past 20 years. YOU refuse to post evidence because you don't have any - all - every one - of the Global Warming Models form circa 1990s have failed and you know it. Now...a lot of other people know it.

No, you have not. It's all wishful thinking including your "success". Keep doing it. It's real fun! You're providing new tosh to our compost and that only can fertilize ideas.

Like I said....show us some model runs from 20 or more years ago (that have not been adjusted for current events - or adjusted for anything else) and that accurately predict the current temperatures. And it is your job to show it, for YOU are claiming Global Warming to be an problem, and YOU are claiming the scientists understand Global Warming.

Your Task is laid out before YOU. When YOU inferred that Scientists had knowledge of Global Warming via Models, YOU tasked yourself to provide evidence. So, YOU have made a claim of knowledge and, as a result, it's up to YOU to show us the evidence.

We await your evidence.

New load of tosh! You have a knack for the dramatic but you fail in science. What you want is a poisoned and meaningless requirement. Meaningless because AGW is not proved or falsified using any model (I'll get back to this later in a new post -I had previous purposes and web engagements-, to describe how they reason you and your kind). Poisoned because you require a model either to be old or to be fed improperly. Queued runs of different versions of the same model along 20 years are available in different scenarios. GFDL-ESM2M and specially GFDL-ESM2G had been very good showing even temperature stagnation or drop (*). Nobody did nor do run a model fed with yearly real inputs -like emissions, volcanic eruptions and solar activity-, just to feed the final state to a new version of the same model, four years later and continue on an on. It would be a waste of computing capacity and it doesn't serve any useful or idle purpose other than provide an answer to the "we" you are part of, what is meaningless because of who the "we" are and because those "whee" still believe models are somewhat the proof or disproof of AGW. So, nobody is in a rush to provide your request.

(*) We discussed it here time ago. A long and tense discussion without any denialist participating in it -it's the standard for having a good discussion-. Look it up by yourself. The show doesn't start when you come in.

 

[DC]

OMFG! What JUNK SCIENCE you have submitted! I ask for a Global Warming Model in the range of 20+ years-old and you give me a paper using Models from 2001 (at the oldest) and plotted against Climate Data that has been "Magically" adjusted to fit the curve.

So...when Climate Data doesn't conform to the Model, then Climate data is altered so it fits the Model....is that the latest "Trick"?

yeah science surely looks like magic to you.

 

[aleCcowaN]

To those interested, related the mid-troposphere, here are the near-real time temperatures and winds at typical 500-hpa level (colour scale in menu, but as a quick guide, greenish yellow, 0-5°C; dark blues, -10 to 0°C, light blues and turquoise, -10 and -20°C; pinkish, -30°C) :

http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/500hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=-70.53,2.72,198

About the jet stream, the same scale, with magentas -40°C and -50°C, brownish -60°C, and blues -70°C:

http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/250hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=-70.53,2.72,198

Play, navigate and zoom at your pleasure.

 

[Jules Galen]

No, you have not. It's all wishful thinking including your "success". Keep doing it. It's real fun! You're providing new tosh to our compost and that only can fertilize ideas.



New load of tosh! You have a knack for the dramatic but you fail in science. What you want is a poisoned and meaningless requirement. Meaningless because AGW is not proved or falsified using any model (I'll get back to this later in a new post -I had previous purposes and web engagements-, to describe how they reason you and your kind). Poisoned because you require a model either to be old or to be fed improperly. Queued runs of different versions of the same model along 20 years are available in different scenarios. GFDL-ESM2M and specially GFDL-ESM2G had been very good showing even temperature stagnation or drop (*). Nobody did nor do run a model fed with yearly real inputs -like emissions, volcanic eruptions and solar activity-, just to feed the final state to a new version of the same model, four years later and continue on an on. It would be a waste of computing capacity and it doesn't serve any useful or idle purpose other than provide an answer to the "we" you are part of, what is meaningless because of who the "we" are and because those "whee" still believe models are somewhat the proof or disproof of AGW. So, nobody is in a rush to provide your request.

(*) We discussed it here time ago. A long and tense discussion without any denialist participating in it -it's the standard for having a good discussion-. Look it up by yourself. The show doesn't start when you come in.

Since you will not, or can not, show me a valid unadulterated model from 20+ years ago that accurately predicts Global Warming, you are admitting defeat.

The Science is Settled: Anthropogenic Global Warming is not a Science. (at least not yet)

I gave you and your friends plenty of time to produce the evidence to back your claims, but that evidence was not forthcoming. So...please don't get all Butthurt and blame me - for it is your own fault for taking a "Scientific" position that you could not defend with evidence.

As a result of your painful lesson, I hope you have learned a bit about how Real Science is done. Once your anger and bitterness has subsided, I am sure you will see the lesson.

Good luck and don't forget to keep trying to learn how Real Science is done.

 

[DC]

Since you will not, or can not, show me a valid unadulterated model from 20+ years ago that accurately predicts Global Warming, you are admitting defeat.

The Science is Settled: Anthropogenic Global Warming is not a Science. (at least not yet)

I gave you and your friends plenty of time to produce the evidence to back your claims, but that evidence was not forthcoming. So...please don't get all Butthurt and blame me - for it is your own fault for taking a "Scientific" position that you could not defend with evidence.

As a result of your painful lesson, I hope you have learned a bit about how Real Science is done. Once your anger and bitterness has subsided, I am sure you will see the lesson.

Good luck and don't forget to keep trying to learn how Real Science is done.

the MIT, Yale, NASA, MPI, etc will be very impressed by your posts.

 

[Jules Galen]

the MIT, Yale, NASA, MPI, etc will be very impressed by your posts.

Edited by LashL: 

Removed breach.

See...I don't have to impress these people - they will do anything to keep that Global Warming money coming in. Most of them a Intellectual Whores for hire.

All I need to do is to impress the people who vote, and to impress the people who give lots of money to fight Global Warming Alarmism. And I work very hard at it. I write to a lot of conservatives around this country and explain to them the dangers of Global Warming Alarmism and they give lots of money to fight it. That's what I do for a living.

And it's effective! The Congress of the US is not going to pass squat to curb the emission of these "Green House" Gasses - which haven't proven to be of any harm anyways. And the future looks good, too - I just don't see any meaningful legislation on the horizon.

Ya' see...the people with Money are on my side....not yours. Plus...Science is on my side, too. So I'm going to impress, and I'm going to win.

In fact, we've already one, it's now just a mopping-up process.

 

[DC]

Edited by LashL: 

Removed quote of moderated content.

See...I don't have to impress these people - they will do anything to keep that Global Warming money coming in. Most of them a Intellectual Whores for hire.

All I need to do is to impress the people who vote, and to impress the people who give lots of money to fight Global Warming Alarmism. And I work very hard at it. I write to a lot of conservatives around this country and explain to them the dangers of Global Warming Alarmism and they give lots of money to fight it. That's what I do for a living.

And it's effective! The Congress of the US is not going to pass squat to curb the emission of these "Green House" Gasses - which haven't proven to be of any harm anyways. And the future looks good, too - I just don't see any meaningful legislation on the horizon.

Ya' see...the people with Money are on my side....not yours. Plus...Science is on my side, too. So I'm going to impress, and I'm going to win.

In fact, we've already one, it's now just a mopping-up process.

you lost already.

 

[Jules Galen]

you lost already.

No...I think you are mistaken. See...the Money is on our side. All the Big Corporations and Rich Donors are giving plenty of money to the anti-AGW cause - and the cause is spending it on the politicians who make the laws.

So, our side has the Money and we've got the Political Power. Plus...Global Warming has halted since 1998 and this just makes it better for our side.

Money, Political Power, Science, Weather: it's an unbeatable combination. It's the Four Horsemen of Doom for Climate Change.

Just don't take it personal.

 

[CapelDodger]

The phrase in my signature says it all: "if the horse reasons, horse riding is completely over".

If the horse reasons, negotiation begins.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Since you will not, or can not, show me a valid unadulterated model from 20+ years ago that accurately predicts Global Warming, you are admitting defeat.

The Science is Settled: Anthropogenic Global Warming is not a Science. (at least not yet)

And the most funny of it is that you believe it!!!! .

The [Íñigo Montoya]Science[/Íñigo Montoya] is Settled: Anthropogenic Global Warming is not a [Íñigo Montoya]Science[/Íñigo Montoya]. (at least not yet)

Reference

Get serious and come back. No, no. Better, post more like that. It never gets old

 

[aleCcowaN]

As a result of your painful lesson, I hope you have learned a bit about how Real Science is done. Once your anger and bitterness has subsided, I am sure you will see the lesson.

Good luck and don't forget to keep trying to learn how Real Science is done.

 

[lomiller]

plotted against Climate Data that has been "Magically" adjusted to fit the curve.

That's a serious charge, do you have evidence for it?

I expect not, because you have a poor track recode of producing evidence to back you claims and have completely ignored the obvious flaws of the "evidence" that you have bothered to provide.

 

[lomiller]

No...I think you are mistaken. See...the Money is on our side. All the Big Corporations and Rich Donors are giving plenty of money to the anti-AGW cause - and the cause is spending it on the politicians who make the laws.

So, our side has the Money and we've got the Political Power. Plus...Global Warming has halted since 1998 and this just makes it better for our side.

None of this will change the physics anymore than the prayers of the Catholic Church changed the fact the earth revolves around the sun.

 

[CapelDodger]

Latest from the Australian BoM:

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/

Warming of the tropical Pacific Ocean over the past several months has primed the climate system for an El Niño in 2014. However, in the absence of the necessary atmospheric response, warming has levelled off in recent weeks. Positive Southern Oscillation Index values and large areas of warm water in the western Pacific and off northwestern Australia are also counter to typical El Niño development.

As I understand it, the trade winds aren't weakening as is usual before an El Nino. Does anyone have any speculations as to why? Are there precedents?

The big bad analogue model is forever throwing up surprises. Like Game of Thrones but without season finales. Just one episode after another. Forever.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Latest from the Australian BoM:

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/


As I understand it, the trade winds aren't weakening as is usual before an El Nino. Does anyone have any speculations as to why? Are there precedents?

The big bad analogue model is forever throwing up surprises. Like Game of Thrones but without season finales. Just one episode after another. Forever.

Trade winds have weakened intermittently just in the Western Pacific, so no Kelvin waves, so no feedback West-East. That would be the logic, but I don't know the subject in deep. Anywhere, each Niño is somewhat unique.

But if I am not mistaken I had posted here that BOM model doesn't see any Niño coming this year. I can tell Niño3.4 index is 0.4 now and it will probably will be 0.3 next week. But Niño 1 and 2 are going up full speed. Today SST (only valid for the date of posting) is pretty clear about that.

Here are sea height anomalies comparing 1997 and 2014 by the same date.

http://www.weatherwest.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/ssha_19970502_20140503_lrg.jpg

According to what we talked a week ago, there's a lot of heat deep under, however, it seems to be moving

(only valid for the date of posting)

My conclusion: Nobody said it was easy. I stand for what I said, Niño starting, keeping weak and going up again some time two month around New Year.

 

[macdoc]

Money,

Heartland is losing donors left and right down some 1.3 million in just 2 years and falling

Political Power,

toothless wonders - can't touch Obama's anti-coal bill or his agreement with China to limite CO2 - all sound and fury signifiying nothing...

Science,

none - even the CHinese Science Academy release a 1200 page rebuttal of the lies the Heartland Institute ( which has tried to cover it up ) published about their stance. Reads like a comedy script

ue, 2013-06-18 21:14GRAHAM READFEARN
Graham Readfearn's picture
Heartland Institute - the Keystone Cops Of Climate Science Denial - Strike Again

http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/06/1...tone-cops-climate-science-denial-strike-again

Weather

:
Extreme events have convinced American's more that ever about climate change and those refuting it has dropped to a mere 14%

he Climate Change In The American Mind Series - Fall 2013
In Fall 2013, we conducted a national survey on Americans’ climate change and energy beliefs, attitudes, policy support, and behavior.

The first report shows that there has been an increase in the proportion of Americans who believe global warming is not happening (23%, up 7 percentage points since April 2013). The proportion of Americans who say they “don’t know” whether or not global warming is happening has dropped 6 points – from 20% to 14% – since spring of 2013. Finally, a majority of Americans (63%) believe global warming is happening, a number that has been consistent since spring 2013. You can download the report here: Americans' Global Warming Beliefs and Attitudes in November 2013.
http://www.climatechangecommunication.org/report/climate-change-american-mind-series-fall-2013

it's an unbeatable combination. It's the Four Horsemen of Doom for Climate Change Denial.

Now do you have any actual climate science to offer???

Does CO2 trap IR?