Global warming discussion IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by Haig
Is there ANYTHING that would falsify AGW in your view?
Click to expand...

Sure a scientifically valid alternative that matches the evidence.
It would also have to include why the optical properties of CO2 which have been well known for a century are not valid and the earth is kept habitable by............

I will be the first to applaud your Noble prize.

Haig don't you get a flush of embarrassment bringing a crank like Monckton into play....I mean really .....is there anything that you won't do to discredit the obvious.???

It's getting warmer, we're responsible.
Time to move on.
 
The imagery of denial's last fragment of scientific pretence depending on observations from a death-spiral presented by the swivel-eyed viscount who has become, quite inexplicably, the public face of the movement has escaped nobody, I'm sure. :eek:

("Observations From a Death-Spiral" - I think I've finally hit on the title for my autobiography. :cool:)
 
Last edited:
CapelDodger said:
Not direct observation, since I'm looking outwards, but I'm under no illusions. I can, as the say, do the math. :cool:
Click to expand...

I'm too busy stockpiling candles to hold back the darkness to become distracted by the encircling encroachment of the long night.
 
macdoc said:
Geez you guys ...read Seveneves and lighten up ;)
Click to expand...

LOL, I thought I was being optimistic! But I'm probably just tired, it's been a busy summer personally and professionally. not complaining, the money is good the personal satisfaction level is high, and everything that needs to be done is getting done, it just seems like I can't get caught up on my sleep and I'm always tired.

sounds like a good story, I wonder if they have it on audio book? that would be a good tractor tale.
 
Last edited:
The one that is really prescient is Mother of Storms ....not only from a climate perspective but where cars, mobile work, media and the internet are going.
Read it first ....THEN look when it was published :eye-poppi
 
Insightful essay :thumbsup:

The Trouble with Global Climate Models
Assuming mainly anthropogenic attribution means GCM’s were (with pause hindsight) incorrectly parameterized. So they now run hot as assumed away ‘natural’ variation changes toward cooling, like it did from about 1945 to about 1975. This was graphically summarized by Dr. Akasofu, former head of the International Arctic Research Center, in 2010—and ignored by IPCC AR5.[6]

Akasofu’s simple idea also explains why Artic ice is recovering, to the alarm of alarmists. DMI ice maps and Larsen’s 1944 Northwest Passage transit suggest a natural cycle in Arctic ice, with a trough in the 1940s and a peak in the 1970s. Yet Arctic ice extent was not well observed until satellite coverage began in 1979, around a probable natural peak. The entire observational record until 2013 may be just the decline phase of some natural ice variation. The recovery in extent, volume, and multiyear ice since 2012 may be the beginning of a natural 35-year or so ice buildup. But the GCM attribution is quite plainly to AGW.
Click to expand...

My bold ...
Almost nobody wants to discuss the fundamentally intractable problem with GCMs. Climate models unfit for purpose would be very off message for those who believe climate science is settled.
Click to expand...
 
Haig: A businessman (Rud Istvan) comments badly about climate sceince

Haig said:
Insightful essay :thumbsup:
Click to expand...
The usual rubbish from a non-science climate denier web site, Haig :jaw-dropp!
7 August Haig: You already know that Monckton lies about "no warming for 18 years N months" at that web site.
So why parrot what looks like more lies?

This is a guest blogger called Rud Istvan displaying his ignorance about climate science. Meteorology is not climate science :eek:. Computer simulations of weather are not computer simulations of climate.
  • The size of the cells used in climate models is not a problem.
  • The determination of parameters via hindcasting in climate models is not a problem.
Rud Istvan lies about "Assuming mainly anthropogenic attribution means GCM’s were (with pause hindsight) incorrectly parameterized". The GCM parameters are established through hindcasting by looking at the actual data regardless of any attribution of causes. Removing anthropogenic drivers such as our emission of CO2 and noting that the hindcasting breaks is evidence of AGW.

Rud Istvan is not a climate scientist.
Rud Istvan is unlikely to have any science or computing expertise.
Rud Istvan lloks like a business man
Rud Istvan is CEO of Third Stream Bioscience, and the principal of NanoCarbons LLC. Rud was previously a Motorola SVP, General Manager of Future Businesses, and Director of its Corporate Strategy Offices. Prior to Motorola he was a senior partner at BCG.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Trakar said:
I'm not much into fictitious fringe rightwing political conspiracy tales filled pseudoscience nonsense, but if that's your thing...
Click to expand...


Care to explain why the GCM's deviate so far from reality to the point of being rubbish? :D

The GCM's can't predict the past (without tweaking) so no wonder they are useless in predicting future global warming temperatures!
 
Haig said:
Care to explain why the GCM's deviate so far from reality to the point of being rubbish? :D
Click to expand...

Quite simply, they don't, and anyone who claims that they do is either guilty of gross exaggeration and misrepresentation or lying.
 
Haig said:
Care to explain why the GCM's deviate so far from reality to the point of being rubbish? :D
Click to expand...
As Trakar points out anyone stating that is stating a gross exaggeration and misrepresentation or a lie, Haig.
GCM's are quite good at predicting the past and future.

Rud Istvan has the delusion that using existing data to determine the parameters of computer models so that they can be used to predict future trends is invalid. This is a delusion since he looks like a businessman and so should have been exposed to economic models which do exactly that :jaw-dropp!
 
Last edited:
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...

Reality Check said:
As Trakar points out anyone stating that is stating a gross exaggeration and misrepresentation or a lie, Haig.
GCM's are quite good at predicting the past and future.

Rud Istvan has the delusion that using existing data to determine the parameters of computer models so that they can be used to predict future trends is invalid. This is a delusion since he looks like a businessman and so should have been exposed to economic models which do exactly that :jaw-dropp!
Click to expand...


Gezz guys, do you really believe that?

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
 
Haig said:
Care to explain why the GCM's deviate so far from reality to the point of being rubbish? :biggrin:
Click to expand...
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/07/30/getting-model-data-comparison-right/#more-7601
One of the favorite criticisms harped on by deniers is that global temperature isn’t rising as fast as computer models have predicted. So far, comparisons have shown that observed temperature is on the low end, even skirting the significantly low end, of model results.
Click to expand...

"Skirting the significantly low end" but not going outside it, despite the La Ninas of 2008 and 2011 and the cool phase PDO and without benefit of this year's data yet. Of course this refers to surface temperatures not global warming in total, but then what else might you be referring to?

The GCM's can't predict the past (without tweaking) ...
Click to expand...
Actually they do.

... so no wonder they are useless in predicting future global warming temperatures!
Click to expand...
That is no doubt your firm belief, but then it's apparently your firm belief that a Maunder-type Minimum is about to start cooling the world quite noticeably. The one follows the other, and the other has no scientific basis, so good luck with that.

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom