Global warming discussion IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
CapelDodger said:
I'll make a prediction : however well models perform and for however long you'll continue to believe that they're failing. It's an article of faith with you, and you're not easily shaken in your faith, I think we can all agree on that.
Click to expand...


You're the ones with faith, I'm just looking at the satellite record of Earth's global temperature and seeing the huge discrepancy with the models.

Care to explain?
 
redux
Repeating nonsense does not strengthen your thesis Haig...put up or....:rolleyes:
•••


Meanwhile in the real world..instead of Haig's fantasy land.

Japan in Hot Water — Longest Heatwave on Record for Tokyo, Tens of Thousands Hospitalized
This morning, at 10:53 AM local time in Tokyo, the temperature was a sweltering 95.2 F (35.1 C) and climbing…

For six days running thermometers in that city have been above 95 degrees F (35 C). That’s the longest unbroken string of 95 degree + highs Japan’s capital has experienced since record-keeping began 140 years ago in 1875. In other words, parts of Japan are experiencing never-seen-before heat.

All told, recent days have seen fully 25 percent of Japan’s cities and towns hit temperatures above 95 F. It’s a heat that sinks bone deep. That gets into the blood. That makes it hard to keep going outdoors. A heat that causes injury and, sometimes, death. And over this summer more than 35,000 people have been hospitalized throughout Japan due to heat injury. Of those, more than 850 have remained hospitalized for three weeks or more. And from this grim tally 55 have now lost their lives.

Hot Ocean Waters Breed Heat Domes

The record hot air temperatures have come on due to a combination of factors. First, the ocean around Japan is abnormally warm. Recently, near-Japan sea surface temperatures have ranged from 2-5 degrees Celsius above established averages. That’s excessively hot water, especially when one considers that El Nino will typically draw the warm waters south and eastward. But this year is not at all typical with unusual-to-record heat now ranging much of the Pacific Ocean basin.
Click to expand...
 
Just one google example ...

Independent Satellite Records Agree: Little to No Global Warming over Past 18 Years
Roy Spencer, John Christy, and William Braswell of the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) Earth System Science Center recently released Version 6 (V.6) of their global satellite temperature dataset. The scientists describe the upgrade, which took three years to complete, as “by far the most extensive revision of the procedures and computer code we have ever produced in over 25 years of global temperature monitoring.”

Compared to the previous UAH dataset (V5.6), the most important change is a reduction in the global average lower-troposphere temperature trend from +0.140°C/decade to +0.114°C/decade over the past 36 years (Dec. ’78 through Mar. ’15).
Click to expand...
 
Trakar said:
Quite simply, they don't, and anyone who claims that they do is either guilty of gross exaggeration and misrepresentation or lying.
Click to expand...
And repetition. We've been hearing that the models have failed since Hansen at al ran the first one on scrounged time on a "super-computer" (excuse my giggle). The more modern ones, well, they've failed the moment they're run. Haig doesn't even know which models he's referring to, but he's very confident that his belief in their failure can survive their actual performance. As am I. :cool:
 
CapelDodger said:
And repetition. We've been hearing that the models have failed since Hansen at al ran the first one on scrounged time on a "super-computer" (excuse my giggle). The more modern ones, well, they've failed the moment they're run. Haig doesn't even know which models he's referring to, but he's very confident that his belief in their failure can survive their actual performance. As am I. :cool:
Click to expand...


The last time I looked there were 39 odd models and I do mean odd :D

None of which are close to the actuality
 
All made up, Haig. Invented. Not by any stretch pukka. A flagrant display of poorly-executed deceit. Not worth the arse it was wiped off. You see where I'm going with this?

You trust people you shouldn't, and I think one of them's yourself.
 
Haig said:
The computer models of Earth's global temperature are so far from the actual measured results of Earth's global temperature record that it's obvious GIGO
Click to expand...
Geez, Haig, an actual lie about climate science :eek:
What makes this a lie is that the parameters of climate models are determined by fitting them to actual measured results of Earth's global temperature record. That is what hindcasting means :jaw-dropp!
The past projections of climate models also cover the current, actual measured results of Earth's global temperature record.

This looks like parroting of the "Models are unreliable" climate myth: How reliable are climate models?
 
Haig said:
The last time I looked there were 39 odd models and I do mean odd :D

None of which are close to the actuality
Click to expand...
Oh yes they are. And there are more models than that, also doing very well.

In contrast the numerous declarations by deniers back in 2005 or so that the world had entered a long-term cooling phase remain uncorrected, although demonstrably wrong over the short-term. 2014 was the warmest year ever, and 2015 will be warmer. The observations which were "skirting the lower end" are moving away from it; even if this El Nino doesn't signal a PDO phase-shift there willl be one before the observations can get back down there.

The best ever chance you'll ever have of seeing observations drop beyond the low-end and it's slipped away. Unless a Maunder-type minimum does the job, and there's no sound reason why it should.
 
Reality Check said:
This looks like parroting of the "Models are unreliable" climate myth: How reliable are climate models?
Click to expand...
Ya think?

More than a myth, it's an article of faith to core deniers, better than gospel - Jesus didn't have graphs, but Christopher Monckton does. And he has the constant look of someone having nails driven though his feet. :eek:

(I'm not going to add "One can dream" since that might be interpreted as a death-threat and you never know who's watching.)
 
Haig said:
It's becoming SO obvious :cool:
Click to expand...
Yes it is SO obvious that we have mindless parroting of climate denier lies, Haig :p.
11 May 2015 Haig: Monckton lies about "no warming for 18 years 3 months"
7 August Haig: You already know that Monckton lies about "no warming for 18 years N months" at that web site.

No citation for your other images but they look quite delusional.
* some idiot plotting an average of models. Look at How reliable are climate models? for how science is done validly.
* stupidity about a "recovery from the little ice age" as if our emissions of CO2 never happened :eek:
 
Last edited:
CapelDodger said:
Ya think?

More than a myth, it's an article of faith to core deniers, better than gospel - Jesus didn't have graphs, but Christopher Monckton does. And he has the constant look of someone having nails driven though his feet. :eek:

(I'm not going to add "One can dream" since that might be interpreted as a death-threat and you never know who's watching.)
Click to expand...


I don't think there is any hope for true AGW believers like you and RC but others might be able to see what's actually happening.

The Unsettling, Anti-Science Certitude on Global Warming
Climate-change ‘deniers’ are accused of heresy by true believers. That doesn’t sound like science to me. By John Steelle Gordon, WSJ, Jul 30, 2015
Click to expand...
SUMMARY: “Are there any phrases in today’s political lexicon more obnoxious than “the science is settled” and “climate-change deniers”?

“The first is an oxymoron. By definition, science is never settled. It is always subject to change in the light of new evidence. The second phrase is nothing but an ad hominem attack, meant to evoke “Holocaust deniers,” those people who maintain that the Nazi Holocaust is a fiction, ignoring the overwhelming, incontestable evidence that it is a historical fact.”

The author debunks the claim “the science is settled” with a brief history of the improvements in planetary motion with the improvements in instruments and theoretical understanding such as the contributions of Einstein. He states: “If anthropogenic climate change is a reality, then that would be a huge problem only government could deal with. It would be a heaven-sent opportunity for the left to vastly increase government control over the economy and the personal lives of citizens.” But goes on to say: “The [Climategate] communications showed that whatever the emailers were engaged in, it was not the disinterested pursuit of science.”
Click to expand...
 
Haig said:
The Unsettling, Anti-Science Certitude on Global Warming
Click to expand...
What we have is a Wall Street Journal article full of hyperbole and a bit paranoid about the left (what a surprise!) :eek:!
Global warming, The Wall Street Journal, and John Gordon
John Steele Gordon published a commentary in The Wall Street Journal on July 30 that, on its face, sounds reasonable. Gordon makes the case that we should be cautious about calling climate science settled as science is always changing. No real quibbles there, as science has shown that nothing is ever truly "settled" science. Unfortunately, that's as close to reality as Gordon comes. The rest of the commentary simply shows off Gordon's simplistic view of history, science, and, especially, the current state of climate science.
Click to expand...
Gordon's arguments include
  • Cherry picking not cited extremist statements about "the science about AGW is settled".
    What is stated in general is that the evidence for AGW is overwhelming.
  • Thinking that the word denier is not appropriate when people deny climate science.
    Linking this to "Holocaust deniers" is really inane.
  • Paraphrasing: "we have not spent 2000 years researching climate science so it must be wrong" :p.
    More seriously his Newton/GR argument is really bad. GR does not state that Newtonian gravitation cannot ever be used. It says that Newtonian gravitation is an approximation. What we have today is an approximation to future developments in climate science.
  • The "warming trend between 1978 and 1998 ceases" climate myth - global surface temperatures continued to warm after 1998.
  • The discrepancy between climate models and temperature observations after 1998 has been mostly explained.
  • Gordon has a genuinely good question about climate sensitivity but then spoils it with a display of ignorance about feedback mechanisms.
  • The idiocy of ignoring the context of "hide the decline" phrase in a Climategate email.
    The decline being hidden was the known problem for proxy temperature data from trees from unknown cause. It was hidden in plain view by replacing it with reliable satellite data and documenting it :eek:.
  • Relying on another batch of stolen emails is not good.
 
Last edited:
Co2 isn't the problem ...

Obama’s EPA Destroys The Animas River
The imbeciles at Obama’s criminal EPA are keenly focused on limiting a harmless, essential trace (0.0004 mole fraction) gas – by making energy prices skyrocket and hurting as many Americans as possible in the process.

Meanwhile the same EPA destroyed the Animas River in Colorado by dumping a million gallons of highly toxic waste into the river, and didn’t bother to inform the state authorities of New Mexico or Colorado until it had already become a huge problem.
Click to expand...
 
Oh dear! :D

CLIMATISTAS FORCED TO ABANDON THEIR OWN BS
These findings are absolutely devastating to the constant environmental refrain that there are huge gains to be had through conservation and efficiency investments. A few years back a had a hammer and tong debate with the slippery Ralph Cavanaugh of the Natural Resources Defense Council, who kept saying that we could achieve our emissions reduction goals through conservation measures like home weatherization, etc. When pressed for data or realistic estimates of amounts, costs, and so forth, he merely repeated his clichés, because he obviously didn’t have any serious data.
Click to expand...
 
Haig, remember my advice about the people you trust? You really should give it some serious thought. WattsUpMyButt and the WSJ are not sound sources of information and insight.
 
Reality Check said:
What we have is a Wall Street Journal article full of hyperbole and a bit paranoid about the left (what a surprise!) :eek:!
Click to expand...
And, of course, nothing new. Just another blowhard repeating denier mythology and petty whines. Speaking of which, notice that Haig then gets Al Gore and Obama into his "argument", no doubt making it devastating in his own mind. The fact that he avoids your points and questions hardly needs comment, but his use of "I know you are but what am I?" surely does.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom