• 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.

The Global Warming Heretic

mhaze said:
Somewhat related - by using 30 year averages of climate, a sinosoidal line of world temperature such as this may be easily generated.


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_142244723654333cdb.png[/qimg]

This graph illustrates various methods of lying which are commonly used by the Alarmists in pushing their agenda. Red is "20th century warming", which starts at a low and ends at a high - properly done it would be like the blue line - starting at a midpoint and ending at a midpoint. Purple is the "Recent unprecedented warming".

Unfortunately for warmers, we are now on the right hand thick black line segment, which destroys the arguments based on the purple line. Now all they have left is "but warming will result with a vengence in (2009, 2010, 2015, 2030, 2030-2050)" which only puts a reasonable person back into chuckling and saying:

"Eh? That old Sliding Ten Year Timetable of Doom" again, huh? Ain't you learned?"

PS: Warmers should think carefully about their arguments before spasmicly blurting that the overall trend of the line is upward.:clap:

And Warmers should apologize for lying or supporting lying about the trendlines as illustrated.
Click to expand...
Yet again you repeat your insulting idiocy.

You gonna bet against Tamino or not? (Thinks: why would I expect such a despicable liar to honour any bet anyway?)
 
Pixel42 said:
Only time will prove you right or wrong. All that can be said at the moment is that the last few years are within the expected noise range of the predicted warming trend, so your categorical statement that warming has stopped is unsupportable. No definite conclusion as to whether warming has or has not stopped can yet be drawn.

Are you going to answer my question? Are you prepared to take the "no further warming" side of the bet described in the link I gave?
Click to expand...
None of the denidiots have taken the bet before so why would we expect any different now?
 
Responding to the OP;

Dyson's critique of AGW is ill-founded and ignores facts in evidence. The poor fellow is clearly not the great mind he once was, but at his age, few people are able to do first-class work. And he clearly does not understand how limited his appreciation of the established science here is.
 
lomiller said:
This called a hindcast and it's done routinely as part of almost every climate model run and the results are consistent with observations.
Click to expand...

So, you are saying that someone (group) did precisely what I suggested (took climate/temperature data that we have up to 1950/1960, used current climate software models and modeled from that time forward) and found that they closely forcasted the Earth's climate to be in a warming trend that we are now experiencing for the turn of the century? Can you or someone please refer/link to this?
 
Last edited:
Just thinking said:
So, you are saying that someone (group) did precisely what I suggested (took climate/temperature data that we have up to 1950/1960, used current climate software models and modeled from that time forward) and found that they closely forcasted the Earth's climate to be in a warming trend that we are now experiencing for the turn of the century? Can you or someone please refer/link to this?
Click to expand...

Just about any time modeling is used it happens. The model output Jim Hanson presented to congress in the 80’s actually started it’s model run in the 50’s and not only got the 25 year hindcaset right but got the next 25 years right as well. (For the scenario that most closely matched real CO2 output of course, he run multiple CO2 scenarios and you wouldn’t expect the scenarios that didn’t match reality to be accurate)

revisited
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2006/2006_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
original
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf



Personally I like this one because it breaks down the contribution of the various forcing to the modeled output.

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/publications/meehl_additivity.pdf


Here is the modeled output, relative contribution of the various forcings and actual temperature all plotted on one graph
picture.php
 
These people start their models over a century ago and then move into the future with the ones that best-predicted the actual climatic conditions;

http://climateprediction.net/

They run a variety of different models to test various assumptions.

And you can participate yourself as this is a "cloud" computing project where you can run a computational node on your computer when you are not using it.
 
BenBurch said:
These people start their models over a century ago and then move into the future with the ones that best-predicted the actual climatic conditions;

They run a variety of different models to test various assumptions.
Click to expand...

But over what interval is their data taken ... and how far into the future are they modeled? The graph just above shows some nice correlation from 1900 - 1990, but what is actual data and what is forecast? And how much do they diverge from 1990 - 2010?
 
Last edited:
Just thinking said:
But over what interval is their data taken ... and how far into the future are they modeled? The graph just above shows some nice correlation from 1900 - 1990, but what is actual data and what is forecast? And how much do they diverge from 1990 - 2010?
Click to expand...

Lots more details on that site than I could ever repeat for you here. They generally run to 2080, but they also have some special models that run over smaller intervals and look only at specific things.

Start here; hhttp://climateprediction.net/content/experiment-strategy-advanced

They have links on the site to many publications that resulted from this work, which has been going on for a decade now.
 
Climate modelling is really not at a predictive stage tho for regional situations there is some progress in things like monsoon..

It offers a range of scenarios based on variable parameters.

The hardest of course is assessing how much GHG we will put into the atmosphere directly and how fast or slow other knock on effects will play out.


The models inform the climatologist community and to a degree the policy makers what range of outcomes in could be expected under various emission regimes.

Best case and worst case......both of these are steadily progressing outside scenarios that are not quite dire ....worst case - as outlined by MIT recently are very dire 90 years out.

These are incredibly complex and just one run can take hundreds of thousands of computers world wide to resolve a single variable...hence the cloud computing.

These two posts by one of the top modellers in the world will give you insight

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...-on-climate-models-part-ii/langswitch_lang/sp

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/faq-on-climate-models/

famous line....

... Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful. Box, George E. P.; Norman R. Draper (1987).
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Did I mis-read the article? Because I didn't notice where he said that global warming isn't happening or that it isn't influenced by CO2.
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
Did I mis-read the article? Because I didn't notice where he said that global warming isn't happening or that it isn't influenced by CO2.
Click to expand...
Chuckle chuckle.

Anytime the Warmers come rushing to denounce someone, do they bother to read the article or look at the facts? Maybe a quick run to the smear sites, desmogblog and mediamatters. Maybe check their scripted talking points at Gristmill. That's about it.

To your credit, you have an open mind, looking at Dyson's opinions, and critically evaluate them.
 
Speaking of modelling ....this confirms my suspicions that aerosols have a huge impact...

'Halo effect' explains brightest patches of sky

* 17:40 30 March 2009 by Nora Schultz

dn16864-1_300.jpg

Every cloud has a silver lining, the saying goes, but as it turns out, it's more of a giant halo.

It was already known that clear sky up to several kilometres away from clouds appears brighter than cloud-free sky elsewhere. People had assumed that this was due to varying levels of tiny particles in the air – now research shows that the effect is actually mostly due to light reflected off the cloud and bouncing off the particles.

This seemingly innocuous finding could have a surprisingly big knock-on effect because it means there may be fewer cooling particles in the sky than previously thought. And that could change the way we model climate change.
Click to expand...

more
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16864-halo-effect-explains-brightest-patches-of-sky.html
 
mhaze said:
Chuckle chuckle.

Anytime the Warmers come rushing to denounce someone, do they bother to read the article or look at the facts? Maybe a quick run to the smear sites, desmogblog and mediamatters. Maybe check their scripted talking points at Gristmill. That's about it.

To your credit, you have an open mind, looking at Dyson's opinions, and critically evaluate them.
Click to expand...

Here's another Dyson quote (from his wikipedia bio):
The physical effects of carbon dioxide are seen in changes of rainfall, cloudiness, wind strength, and temperature, which are customarily lumped together in the misleading phrase "global warming." This phrase is misleading because the warming caused by the greenhouse effect of increased carbon dioxide is not evenly distributed. In humid air, the effect of carbon dioxide on the transport of heat by radiation is less important, because it is outweighed by the much larger greenhouse effect of water vapor. The effect of carbon dioxide is more important where the air is dry, and air is usually dry only where it is cold. The warming mainly occurs where air is cold and dry, mainly in the arctic rather than in the tropics, mainly in winter rather than in summer, and mainly at night rather than in daytime. The warming is real, but it is mostly making cold places warmer rather than making hot places hotter.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson

Nothing in there that any of us warmers would have a fundamental disagreement with (some might argue whether that fraction of a degree change in the tropics is really insignificant). However, it directly contradicts Gerlich's theory, which IIRC you supported.
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
Chuckle chuckle.

Anytime the Warmers come rushing to denounce someone, do they bother to read the article or look at the facts? Maybe a quick run to the smear sites, desmogblog and mediamatters. Maybe check their scripted talking points at Gristmill. That's about it.

To your credit, you have an open mind, looking at Dyson's opinions, and critically evaluate them.
Click to expand...
Why the hell would I critically evaluate someone's opinion about something he has no freaking clue about? Oooo good. He has a Phd..... IN THE WRONG FIELD. And what exactly is he famous for? Wikipedia does not make the man out to be very influential.
EDIT:
Good old wikipedia. Giving his science fictiony guesses an entire paragraph and his really important work that matters to everyone one sentence.
 
Last edited:
BenBurch said:
Have your laugh.

I *am* familiar with Dyson's ideas. The major problem is that he does not understand that carbon sinks have a finite capacity - he thinks that the system will speedily self-regulate. And it can't.
Click to expand...

My impression is that Dyson thinks that if the CO2-induced warming (which he believes is occurring) turns out to be harmful, we have, or will soon have, the ability to remove some of the CO2 from the atmosphere, perhaps by planting billions of trees that have been genetically engineered to absorb copious amounts of Carbon. I didn't get the impression that he believes that the excess CO2 will be removed naturally, though I didn't read the article carefully and I had never heard of this guy before today.
 
technoextreme said:
Why the hell would I critically evaluate someone's opinion about something he has no freaking clue about? Oooo good. He has a Phd..... IN THE WRONG FIELD. And what exactly is he famous for? Wikipedia does not make the man out to be very influential.
EDIT:
Good old wikipedia. Giving his science fictiony guesses an entire paragraph and his really important work that matters to everyone one sentence.
Click to expand...
I'm at a loss as to how to answer this. Let's see...it is the 17th century and some Indians are charging Spaniards with their tomahawks out.

But why should they worry?

They know they are out of arrow range!:clap:
 
technoextreme said:
He has a Phd..... IN THE WRONG FIELD. And what exactly is he famous for? Wikipedia does not make the man out to be very influential.
Click to expand...

Oddly enough, for one so eminent in the sciences, he doesn't have a PhD. He's just plain Mr. Dyson.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom