Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 26481 - 26500 of total 28249 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
The Chief

climber
Laughing at all you angry blinded asshat Sheep
Sep 15, 2014 - 09:10pm PT
What is your point EDH?



The bottom line of the study, the HIATUS exists as was stated repeatedly in the paper and has done so since 2000. That the modeling process prior to 1998 failed to project it.

Regardless are the reasons. The models FAILED.


Nice try in doing the Dr. Physic's Professor scientific verbiage manipulation in order to prove, nothing.


Or perhaps you'd prefer some overbearin' arm of Gubmint doing it?

I see you are back on the meth pipe Brucee KY. NOAA and NASA/GISS ah, wait for it.... THEY ARE THE "Gubmit"!
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Sep 15, 2014 - 09:32pm PT
the point is that the paper you referred to actually refers to the IPCC AR5 report identifying "the hiatus"

it is old news.... as far as the models "failing" you can't read if that is your conclusion. The paper is investigating the difference between the models and the observations. Not a "fail."

Not only that, but the paper you refer to says this:

But the fact that all model simulations, when averaged together, do not simulate the hiatus has been touted as a failure of any model to simulate what actually occurred in the early-2000s 11,12.

However, inspection of the individual ensemble members from these same model simulations reveals that ten members actually produced the observed warming trend (defined as a trend less than 0.04 C per decade as observed) during the period of the hiatus 2000-2013 (Fig. 1a and refs 4,13).


the paper goes on to look at those 10 ensemble members.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Sep 15, 2014 - 09:37pm PT
So Eddy, what do you think about the double speak and CYA's liberally sprinkled in reference 1? Particularly what do you think about the desire to time travel back to the 90's to apply the new decadal abilities of the most modern failing models, the blaming of having the full downward portion of the Schwabe cycle for (mis) perceived model failure and the expectations of increasingly intense solar cycles in the near term future to get projections versus reality back on track, or the pre-blaming of future large volcanic eruptions for possible future model failures while expressing belief the human produced cooling aerosols will decrease in the future?

114 climate models to cherry pick amongst for phony validation and they still have to include many paragraphs of scientific double speak to justify their slippery long term projections. Doesn't it cause embarrassment to you to endorse this load of crap?
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Sep 15, 2014 - 09:38pm PT
i see you got it handled Chief, Carry-On!


i thought a strong-armed gov is what KY had been praying for all along
The Chief

climber
Laughing at all you angry blinded asshat Sheep
Sep 15, 2014 - 09:47pm PT
Precisely EDH.

the point is that the paper you referred to actually refers to the IPCC AR5 report identifying "the hiatus"


And thank you. The IPCC called it, the "HIATUS" and this study verifies it. The "HIATUS" that you denied over and over again existed.


So, do you now concur that the "HIATUS" exists and has done so since 2000 or so?


Also, ten members? What is the total count of "members' concerning the model group?

According to all your crayon drawings you have posted in the past in order validate your insistent claim the the "Hiatus" did not exist, that number is around 80-90.

So, that averages out that 10 out of 80 models did show something that indicated the "Hiatus", which by the way you so sternly denied existed, that comes to 1/8th of all models.

So less than 12.5% of all the current models back prior to 1998 did their jobs with some measure of accuracy.

WOW! That is some good science. Thank god that the worlds gov't's did not react and do all the stupidass shet you want them to do, back then.





WTF is this FARTMENTAL!


FortMentäl

Social climber
Albuquerque, NM

Sep 15, 2014 - 09:38pm PT
Google search for:
Antarctica record sea ice extent
2,170,000 hits - Ho hum.... yawn.
The warmists have been quite desperate for news supporting their gloom and doom future.

uh,read the article!
The sea ice is formed from freezing sea water, as in, you know, really, really cold water?[/q
has little to do with the continental ice.
http://www.thepiratescove.us/2014/09/15/if-all-you-see-1253/


Nice try in doing the Dr. Physic's Professor scientific verbiage manipulation in order to prove, nothing.

Watching you butt-nuggets try to out-retard each other is truly priceless!
Rapid sea-level rise along the Antarctic margins in response to increased glacial discharge

The Antarctic shelf seas are at present receiving increasing amounts of freshwater from the melting of the Antarctic Ice Sheet and its fringing ice shelves primarily around the Antarctic Peninsula and the Amudsen Sea.

In response, the surface ocean salinity in this region has declined in past decades. Here, we assess the effects of the freshwater input on regional sea level using satellite measurements of sea surface height (for months with no sea-ice cover) and a global ocean circulation model.

We find that from 1992 to 2011, sea-level rise along the Antarctic coast is at least 2 ± 0.8 mm yr−1 greater than the regional mean for the Southern Ocean south of 50° S. On the basis of the model simulations, we conclude that this sea-level rise is almost entirely related to steric adjustment, rather than changes in local ocean mass, with a halosteric rise in the upper ocean and thermosteric contributions at depth.

We estimate that an excess freshwater input of 430 ± 230 Gt yr−1 is required to explain the observed sea-level rise. We conclude that accelerating discharge from the Antarctic Ice Sheet has had a pronounced and widespread impact on the adjacent subpolar seas over the past two decades.


So, there's your "record" Antarctic ice! Sliding off the continent, raising local sea level and diluting surface salt content! Let's see your graphs now, butt nuggets!

Inserting my post into TGT's.


Like NASA, you distort the truth so well....
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Sep 15, 2014 - 10:05pm PT
Praying for a strong armed Gubmint?

You would think that eh Blue blocker. I tell you what, how about you doing your little praying thing and then armed with whatever that results in, you do the "auditing".

At least then you can be sure that no matter what gibberish you come up with, its right. Or at least righteous if not right, and we all know which is more important

The Chief

climber
Laughing at all you angry blinded asshat Sheep
Sep 15, 2014 - 10:10pm PT
FARTMENTAL and BRUCEE KY conversing with MONO listening in attentively....






"It's getting hot in here... must be the high levels of C02 coming from the kitchen. Whatta ya think Fart?"



................................................Mono thinking hard on how he can graph that one..... ^^^^^^^^^
moosedrool

climber
lost, far away from Poland
Sep 15, 2014 - 10:22pm PT
Sorry to interrupt, but it seems like good news.

Fixing Climate Change May Add No Costs, Report Says

In decades of public debate about global warming, one assumption has been accepted by virtually all factions: that tackling it would necessarily be costly. But a new report casts doubt on that idea, declaring that the necessary fixes could wind up being effectively free.

A global commission will announce its finding on Tuesday that an ambitious series of measures to limit emissions would cost $4 trillion or so over the next 15 years, an increase of roughly 5 percent over the amount that would likely be spent anyway on new power plants, transit systems and other infrastructure.

When the secondary benefits of greener policies — like lower fuel costs, fewer premature deaths from air pollution and reduced medical bills — are taken into account, the changes might wind up saving money, according to the findings of the group, the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/16/science/earth/fixing-climate-change-may-add-no-costs-report-says.html?_r=0

Moose
dave729

Trad climber
Western America
Sep 15, 2014 - 10:32pm PT
Americans are open minded and readily agree we can't think of
all the good ideas on our globe.

Are we ready for this in the USA?
Like throwing scientists in jail for making up global warming nonsense
and trying to scare people.


South African law would jail meteorologists for weather forecasts;
10 years in prison.
https://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/south-african-law-jail-meteorologists-weather-forecasts-002132833.html

Italy
Scientists convicted of manslaughter for failing to warn of earthquake;
six years in prison.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/oct/22/scientists-convicted-manslaughter-earthquake
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Sep 15, 2014 - 10:35pm PT
So less than 12.5% of all the current models back prior to 1998 did their jobs with some measure of accuracy.

no, you've no idea what you are talking about... 10 "ensemble members" may be from models that also had "ensemble members" in the other category. The question that the paper asks is one regarding predictive "skill" on the decadal time scales, something which is quite a challenge for climate models.

rick won't like anything that doesn't agree with his current pet theories... all of which are in scientific disrepute for lack of confirmation. Perhaps we can pursue one of his lines of interest recently and see where it takes us... but I'm likely to be too busy for the next couple of weeks and may not find the time.

But if you look at the IPCC report excerpt you can see part of the possible causes pursued by the paper The Chief has reblogged... this is, as HighTraverse pointed out a good look at how science gets done.



The Chief is remembering things the way he wants, that's fine by me... but the point I was making in the past was a question of prediction precision and accuracy as compared to observational precision and accuracy. That is also the point of Box 9.2 Figure 1... and you can see at a glance (though I'm sure some of you will consider it "advanced statistics" to know what a histogram is...) that the precision and accuracy of the models and the observations are in quite good agreement when considering the time period between 1951-2011 (which includes the "hiatus").

The point being that climate models are good at predicting global means over a period of time more like 60 years than the shorter times like 10 years...
...rick, TGT, The Chief all like to talk about the weather along the west coast, this year... definitely not climate.



So having the paper explained to him, The Chief has gone from "fail" to only 12% of the ensemble members were correct...

...we still haven't discussed how "incorrect" the other ensemble members were, and why...

rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Sep 15, 2014 - 10:56pm PT
Mr. Fortturdburglar, perhaps you are going by the old Grace results showing a slight decline in continental Antarctic ice mass. Newer continent wide results from IceSat show an increase in total mass as discussed by Zwally et al 2012. Since your alwys involved in activities where the sun never shines your ignorance is forgiven.

No Eddy, I'm not talking about weather when thinking about the hydrological cycle and its response to increased SST's, IR CO2 absorbtion fatigue from repeated reemissions and work loss, increased earth albedo due to the negative feedback of slightly increased cloud total or the increasing global sea and land ice coverage, or most importantly large variations in solar UV radiation and prolonged periods of increased or decreased solar activity better known as grand maximums and grand minimums: all factors that will have to be explored in depth when the CAGW post mortem is analysed.
The Chief

climber
Laughing at all you angry blinded asshat Sheep
Sep 15, 2014 - 10:56pm PT
no, you've no idea what you are talking about...

10 "ensemble members" may be from models that also had "ensemble members" in the other category.

The question that the paper asks is one regarding predictive "skill" on the decadal time scales, something which is quite a challenge for climate models.

Oh the irony, EDH! By your own admission, you have absolutely zero clue as to the total number nor the origin of the members. Zilch.

And you still vehemently avoid agreeing with the IPCC, NOAA and UCAR that the HIATUS exists and has done so since 2000 or so.

Also by your own admission, the models struggle consistently in their ability to portray any resemblance of accuracy. According to this recent study which clearly identifies major negative issues in their process/procedures in order to accurately project the long term trends in the climate.

But if you look at the IPCC report excerpt you can see part of the possible causes pursued by the paper The Chief has reblogged.

There ya go again EDH,

I reblogged nothing. Unless of course you now claim ...

http://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/just-published/12313/progress-decadal-climate-prediction

As a blog.


And...


http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/climate-models-simulate-global-warming-pause.html



Our mission is to provide independent news on climate science. We are dedicated to fair and accurate reporting of the facts of climate science, developments in climate research and the views of climate scientists.

reportingclimatescience.com was set up in 2010 with the aim of reporting on the latest research in climate science. Most of this research is consistent with the mainstream consensus on climate change; but some is not. We publish our reports irrespective of the implications they may have in the climate debate.

A lot of hard work is being done by climate scientists around the world to help us to get a better understanding of the climate. We see the role of this website as helping to share that emerging understanding. I hope that you find our service useful.


Leon Clifford

As a blog.



I hope that is not any indication of your ability to do thorough research, EDH.


Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Sep 15, 2014 - 11:00pm PT
Oh the irony, EDH! By your own admission, you have absolutely zero clue as to the total number and origin of the members. Zilch.

huh? I downloaded the data from all the runs... maybe you forgot that... and I know what models produced what runs under what conditions...

you could too if you wanted.

by my own admission?
you're in fantasy land again.
The Chief

climber
Laughing at all you angry blinded asshat Sheep
Sep 15, 2014 - 11:06pm PT
EDH... put your glasses on and put down the bottle that BRUCEE KY sent you.


Let's try this again....


Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA

Sep 15, 2014 - 10:35pm PT


no, you've no idea what you are talking about...

10 "ensemble members" may be from models that also had "ensemble members" in the other category.

The question that the paper asks is one regarding predictive "skill" on the decadal time scales, something which is quite a challenge for climate models.

Oh the irony, EDH! By your own admission above, you have absolutely zero clue as to the total number nor the origin of the members. Zilch.

And you still vehemently avoid agreeing with the IPCC, NOAA and UCAR that the HIATUS exists and has done so since 2000 or so.

Also by your own admission, the models struggle consistently in their ability to portray any resemblance of accuracy. According to this recent study which clearly identifies major negative issues in their process/procedures in order to accurately project the long term trends in the climate.


ED HARTOUNI, are you now in full concurrence with the IPCC, NOAA and UCAR this "HIATUS" that began around 2000, exists?

YES or NO?
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Sep 15, 2014 - 11:17pm PT
go back and reread my posts, The Chief

you can move your lips when you read if it will help your comprehension.
The Chief

climber
Laughing at all you angry blinded asshat Sheep
Sep 15, 2014 - 11:19pm PT
A simple YES or NO EDH....



Do you or do you NOT concur with the IPCC, NOAA and UCAR regarding the existence of the HIATUS that began around 2000.


Simple.... Doesn't take a DR'd physicist to spend years formulating that one out.

Well, maybe it does... if they work for the DOE/US Gubament.

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Sep 15, 2014 - 11:38pm PT
...consistently in their ability to portray any resemblance of accuracy.
no, the question is what is the accuracy, they do very well, not perfect.

According to this recent study which clearly identifies major negative issues in their process/procedures in order to accurately project the long term trends in the climate.

no, you didn't understand the paper at all (not surprising) the issue is the short term accuracy, they didn't question the long term accuracy where the internal variability is averaged over, from the second paragraph of the paper:

"Traditional free-running climate simulations that start in the mid-nineteenth century and proceed through the twentieth century with observed human-produced forcings, such as increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs), aerosols and ozone, along with natural forcings, such as aerosols from volcanic eruptions and solar variability, are designed to simulate the response of the climate system to those changes in external forcings. To do this, multiple realizations or ensemble members are run with each model. These are then averaged together to remove the effects of naturally occurring interannual and decadal timescale variability, leaving only the response to the external forcings. If the early-2000s hiatus is mostly a result of internally generated climate variability 2-5, the average of all those simulations for the early 21st century would, and indeed does, lie above the actual plateau of warming that occurred in the observations 1,6."

i supplied the underline for emphasis...
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Sep 16, 2014 - 12:22am PT
My god Ed, you are seriously deluded if you buy into accuracy of these models in the unreal world where natural variability and processes are removed. So, in what portion of the infinite multiverse could such treatment have any bearing on reality?
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Sep 16, 2014 - 12:36am PT
That's right Glandhead, it don't mean shet. It, CAGW science, also became non-science as soon as it was hijacked to support a twisted political agenda not compatible with human life.
climbski2

Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
Sep 16, 2014 - 12:49am PT
Rick

All of civilizations advances in the last 400 years are due to only one thing

Science.

Science is simply one thing

Answering questions

Is this true or false verifiably?

It is the most powerful thing in history. The apparatus.. the system is not perfect.. but it does work. It works well over time.

You are wrong about global warming friend. But that's not what is interesting about this thread. What is interesting is the process of a civilization facing a problem..one that just might destroy it... I doubt civilization will be destroyed but the possibility exists. More likely billions will simply suffer more than necessary. Perhaps that is worse than a mass die off. That calculus is not one I wish to give more than a fleeting thought about.

Man is intelligent.. mankind. not always so much. Good luck to the future. The elements of human specialization encoded in our collective genetics may not be proper for the current issues. The time of the hunter gatherers mix is past.. the genetic mix is still stuck in that world.. it may well bring us back to where it thrives. Has the mix shifted somewhat? Has it become more intelligent and farsighted? The things that make man something special? Or is it still more focused on brute force and reactions that are destructive to complex systems?

When I was young I expected better from humanity. I am hopeful that what we managed to barely muddle through in the past was worse than what the future holds.
Messages 26481 - 26500 of total 28249 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews