New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

[Animavore]

That reminds me. Time for a shit, shower and shave

[mistermack]

That, and I would say that the 10 per cent represent people who'd at the very least prefer to omit the A from AGW, so it's not just a matter of degree that this is about. That's where the vehemence comes from.

Plus there's a faffload of positive feedback loops that don't need much of a change in temperature before we start seeing huge changes (or at least a huge AMOUNT of changes), though maybe not any time soon.

There is a fatal flaw in the feedback loop argument, and that is that nobody can explain how they STOP.
Not to my satisfaction. How has the earth cooled from periods of much warmer climate and higher CO2 in the past?
Because it doesn't just cool, the temperatures positively plummets, from a point where the feedback should be SO strong that nothing could stop it.

So feedback is just one more thing that hasn't been studied, measured, or verified.
It's modelled. That's all.
I'm sure it happens, but I can't accept that they can accurately model or predict it.

[mistermack]

Did you read them? They did prove his point.

But you will think what you think whatever the evidence against it. And argue your point until everyone else fucks off to the pub. You always do.

Hey, hang on, it takes two, and I fucked off before GFL.
And they didn't prove his point, and couldn't prove anything, BECAUSE THEY WERE AN OPINION !!
And an opinion of a tiny minority, on the meaning of the word species, which is itself a matter of widely spread opinion. How on earth does that PROVE anything?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Did you read them? They did prove his point.

But you will think what you think whatever the evidence against it. And argue your point until everyone else fucks off to the pub. You always do.

Hey, hang on, it takes two, and I fucked off before GFL.
And they didn't prove his point, and couldn't prove anything, BECAUSE THEY WERE AN OPINION !!
And an opinion of a tiny minority, on the meaning of the word species, which is itself a matter of widely spread opinion. How on earth does that PROVE anything?

[Mysturji]

I was also surprised to find Spencer is a big supporter of Intelligent Design.

I'm surprised when anybody supports that stuff. But intelligent design isn't any more or less ridiculous that the usual Christian creation rubbish. And if you only accepted science from atheists, you would be missing an awful lot.

The pro AGW side would lose a lot more supporters than the anti side, if you ignored all non-atheist opinion.

Actually I only accept science from scientists. Not just from atheists. I also accept when a scientist's thesis has been absolutely excoriated instead of persisting in claiming it's right because my ideology dictates it.

Gee! Big words! I must be true!

[Schneibster]

It's worth mentioning that the statement that the data Spencer was compared with was from models is incorrect. It's actually historic climate data, like, you know, taken with instruments. And stuff. Snicker.

Spencer is basically claiming that extrapolation from ten years' satellite data is of greater significance than actual historic data taken over a hundred and fifty years. It's ludicrous.

You'd know that if you'd read Real Climate. Of course, it's "global warming alarmists," right?

[mistermack]

It's worth mentioning that the statement that the data Spencer was compared with was from models is incorrect. It's actually historic climate data, like, you know, taken with instruments. And stuff. Snicker.

Spencer is basically claiming that extrapolation from ten years' satellite data is of greater significance than actual historic data taken over a hundred and fifty years. It's ludicrous.

You'd know that if you'd read Real Climate. Of course, it's "global warming alarmists," right?

No it wasn't. Go back and read it again, and try to understand it this time.

[Schneibster]

This one is titled "How to cook a graph in three easy lessons." So much for Spencer. Honest to jebus I don't even have to read them any more.

I have no time for climate cranks. Where is the mute button on this thing?

[mistermack]

To quote realclimate is like quoting the fucking bible.
You just can't be taken seriously.

[Schneibster]

Dissing Real Climate is the key tipoff that you're dealing with a crank. It's like dissing TalkOrigins.

[mistermack]

Dissing Real Climate is the key tipoff that you're dealing with a crank. It's like dissing TalkOrigins.

To the best of my knowledge, talkorigins doesn't pretend that computer models are evidence.
Bones and stones. You can't beat em.

[Pensioner]

The Americans did not land on the Moon, Kennedy was shot by someone shooting from the grassy knoll and 9/11 was an inside job, also smoking is not harmful. Same interweb bollocks is posted about global warming. The tame scientists who are in the pay of the Oil Corporations and rightwing think tanks are beyond the pale.

Take one so called experts Dr Tim Ball. “Canadian climate scientist, Dr Tim Ball is a veteran critic of the “junk science” of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and no stranger to controversy.” This is a quote from one of the many denialist sites who state that Ball was a “climate scientist”, not true in fact it is a lie. Ball was never a climate scientist.

I have copied and pasted an email that I got from a friend who has a PhD in marine
Biology, look at the link to see how many scientists are depicted as dishonest and corrupt.

“Good to see that the Nature piece about climate change deniers has put me (and coauthors Dave Reay and Richard Milne) in illustrious company.

http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/glo ... _shame.htm

The kind of site that makes you wonder about the mental health of the more extreme deniers."

[Schneibster]

Dissing Real Climate is the key tipoff that you're dealing with a crank. It's like dissing TalkOrigins.

To the best of my knowledge, talkorigins doesn't pretend that computer models are evidence.
Bones and stones. You can't beat em.

OTOH, in the real world, almost all of the work all the scientists and engineers in the entire human race do is modeling. And because computers are much, much better than humans at math, almost all of them are computer models these days; we've gotten far enough in physics that we're doing things that we don't have direct PDEs for, for example fluid dynamics, for example the strong force's action in various complex circumstances as two of the most obvious. Finding a general solution to the Navier-Stokes equations, or showing that one cannot exist, is on the list of millenium problems. Wanna win a million smackeroos? Solve that one.

Hey, the movements of the planets over long periods of time is not certain, because there is no direct solution to the three-body problem. We model it; ephemerides, therefore, are forecasts. We model the motions of the planets. We have no choice; we don't know of a set of equations that directly and unambiguously give answers over arbitrary time.

Shame you don't seem to know much about science.

[mistermack]

Shame you don't seem to know much about science.

What I do know is that a forecast is infinitely harder than a retro model. Because with a forecast, you only get one shot. With retro modelling, you keep going till it matches.

And that climate models have yet to forecast climate correctly. That's a record of zero success that we are supposed to trust.

What I do know is that some things are simple enough to model successfully, and some are not.
Your analogue is deliberately misleading. I'm sure that you well know how difficult the climate is to model. And that the smallest tweak of input leads to hugely different results.

If models are so good, it's amazing they can't model weather, isn't it? But apparently they can't. 100 years of climate is obviously simpler to model than a week of weather.

[Schneibster]

Shame you don't seem to know much about science.

What I do know is that a forecast is infinitely harder than a retro model. Because with a forecast, you only get one shot. With retro modelling, you keep going till it matches.

Yep. Of course, we do forecasts of the positions of the planets just fine, thanks, even though we lack exact solutions to n-body problems. Which is why, of course, we don't have exact solutions to the Navier-Stokes equations. But we have really, really good models; good enough to make non-cavitating propellers for submarines, for example, but that's an old trick, we've been able to make accurate models like that for thirty or forty years. Do try to keep up.

And that climate models have yet to forecast climate correctly. That's a record of zero success that we are supposed to trust.

Considering we're only just barely, at generation five, starting to get enough computer power to use relatively complete models that include ocean heat circulation and clouds, it's not surprising that results are of limited resolution. However, you are in essence plain flat wrong; Mann's hockey-stick model has been validated by the climate since the 1980s, though climate cranks try over and over to deny it. I will repeat: "fundamentally sound," according to the review of his peers and of the Inspectors General of two major US government scientific organizations: the NOAA and the NSF.

I expect you didn't read that thread, hmmm?

What I do know is that some things are simple enough to model successfully, and some are not.
Your analogue is deliberately misleading. I'm sure that you well know how difficult the climate is to model. And that the smallest tweak of input leads to hugely different results.

What I know is that they've been writing more and more and more sophisticated models for thirty years and you're still pretending they're the same ones from thirty years ago, by criticizing them on the same basis. What I also know is that the results of those original models, in broad strokes, are the same ones we're getting today; the prediction has not changed, it has just become a lot (a LOT!!!) more detailed.

Nothing is too complicated to model. If chaos were that prevalent, El Nino could not exist. Just sayin'.

If models are so good, it's amazing they can't model weather, isn't it? But apparently they can't. 100 years of climate is obviously simpler to model than a week of weather.

I'm absolutely certain you have heard this before: climate is not weather. Apparently you forgot.