Author Topic: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread  (Read 116376 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline OK_Cat

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 14876
  • Hey
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #25 on: June 11, 2013, 03:19:07 PM »
if the models are all wrong, you must call cheech and chong


Offline husserl

  • Fan
  • *
  • Posts: 128
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #26 on: June 11, 2013, 03:28:50 PM »
What's so funny about the ocean thing?  I don't want to miss out on anything super hilarious. 


And why does the graph only focus on the (mis)match between models and atmospheric observations in the tropics?

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-execsum.pdf 

Quote
Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming
near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to
challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced
global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial
global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde
data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant
discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and
radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets
have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies.
...
While these data are
consistent with the results from climate models at the global scale,
discrepancies in the tropics remain to be resolved.
...
Tropical Temperature Results (20°S to 20°N)
• Although the majority of observational data sets show more warming at the surface than in
the troposphere, some observational data sets show the opposite behavior. Almost all model
simulations show more warming in the troposphere than at the surface. This difference between
models and observations may arise from errors that are common to all models, from
errors in the observational data sets, or from a combination of these factors. The second
explanation is favored, but the issue is still open.

That report was co authored by John Christy, the same guy that made the graph.

Offline Emo EMAW

  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 17889
  • Unrepentant traditional emobro
    • View Profile

Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 15227
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #28 on: June 11, 2013, 04:29:44 PM »
What's so funny about the ocean thing?  I don't want to miss out on anything super hilarious. 


And why does the graph only focus on the (mis)match between models and atmospheric observations in the tropics?

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-execsum.pdf 

Quote
Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming
near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to
challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced
global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial
global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde
data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant
discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and
radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets
have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies.
...
While these data are
consistent with the results from climate models at the global scale,
discrepancies in the tropics remain to be resolved.
...
Tropical Temperature Results (20°S to 20°N)
• Although the majority of observational data sets show more warming at the surface than in
the troposphere, some observational data sets show the opposite behavior. Almost all model
simulations show more warming in the troposphere than at the surface. This difference between
models and observations may arise from errors that are common to all models, from
errors in the observational data sets, or from a combination of these factors. The second
explanation is favored, but the issue is still open.

That report was co authored by John Christy, the same guy that made the graph.

What branch of science is the garbage in garbage out branch?  I mean, the earth is only covered by a little water, so probably not relevant.
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7995
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #29 on: June 12, 2013, 09:55:55 AM »
What's so funny about the ocean thing?  I don't want to miss out on anything super hilarious.

Because the klimate krazies will leave no stone unturned trying to find that elusive warming. The latest peer-reviewed study suggests it may be hiding in peoples' ovens. Crazy stuff.

And why does the graph only focus on the (mis)match between models and atmospheric observations in the tropics?

Two reasons: First because, as the article you excerpted explains, most of the models predicted that the most warming would indeed occur in the troposphere. Thus, it was only fair to compare apples to apples. Second, atmospheric measurements are more reliable than surface-based measurements, which are more prone to variability based on changes in land use as opposed to "climate change."

I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Online MeatSauce

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1124
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #30 on: June 12, 2013, 10:12:06 AM »
K-S-U-Wildcats!, are you a "global warming is a hoax" guy or a "I'm skeptical about the amount of warming the increasing atmospheric CO2 is causing" guy?

and:
Because the klimate krazies will leave no stone unturned trying to find that elusive warming. The latest peer-reviewed study suggests it may be hiding in peoples' ovens. Crazy stuff.
why do repubs sub in K's for C's like this?

Offline OregonSmock

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 8512
  • Mashing 'taters like an Old Country Buffet
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #31 on: June 12, 2013, 10:53:27 AM »
Most conservatives out there are victims of confirmation bias.  That's why they cling to outlier opinions and studies that are funded by special interest groups, instead of accepting the scientific consensus. 

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7995
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #32 on: June 12, 2013, 10:53:57 AM »
K-S-U-Wildcats!, are you a "global warming is a hoax" guy or a "I'm skeptical about the amount of warming the increasing atmospheric CO2 is causing" guy?

Is global warming a "hoax?" I guess it depends on your definition. The planet has maybe warmed by about 1/2 degree Celsius since 1970, though this is of, course, and is only as reliable as the data collected (see surface weather station concerns). The Earth warms and cools over time.

Yes, I'm very skeptical as to how much of this warming is attributable to increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. In fact, recently reported observations (now even in the NYT, no less) indicates that we should all be skeptical about this. That's what this thread is about.

why do repubs sub in K's for C's like this?

I dunno. K just seems kookier than C.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7995
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #33 on: June 12, 2013, 10:56:27 AM »
Most conservatives out there are victims of confirmation bias.  That's why they cling to outlier opinions and studies that are funded by special interest groups, instead of accepting the scientific consensus.

:lol: Confirmation bias has nothing to do with ideology. I would suggest, however, that liberals are more prone to groupthink, as your post aptly demonstrates. Science is not about "consensus" versus "outlier" opinions. Is the hypothesis supported by observations, or not? That's all that matters. As Dr. Spencer's work indicates, the hypotheses of the climate models is terribly flawed.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2013, 11:00:57 AM by K-S-U-Wildcats! »
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline OregonSmock

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 8512
  • Mashing 'taters like an Old Country Buffet
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #34 on: June 12, 2013, 11:02:18 AM »
Most conservatives out there are victims of confirmation bias.  That's why they cling to outlier opinions and studies that are funded by special interest groups, instead of accepting the scientific consensus.

:lol: Confirmation bias has nothing to do with ideology. I would suggest, however, that liberals are more prone to groupthink, as your post aptly demonstrates. Science is not about "consensus" versus "outlier" opinions. Is the hypothesis supported by observations, or not. As Dr. Spencer's work indicates, the hypotheses of the climate models is terribly flawed.


So it's Dr. Spencer vs. 97% of climate scientists, then?  Sounds like an outlier opinion/study. 

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 22196
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #35 on: June 12, 2013, 11:06:52 AM »
It's a few "outliers" against the politically and funding motivated herd.

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7995
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #36 on: June 12, 2013, 11:07:11 AM »
Most conservatives out there are victims of confirmation bias.  That's why they cling to outlier opinions and studies that are funded by special interest groups, instead of accepting the scientific consensus.

:lol: Confirmation bias has nothing to do with ideology. I would suggest, however, that liberals are more prone to groupthink, as your post aptly demonstrates. Science is not about "consensus" versus "outlier" opinions. Is the hypothesis supported by observations, or not. As Dr. Spencer's work indicates, the hypotheses of the climate models is terribly flawed.


So it's Dr. Spencer vs. 97% of climate scientists, then?  Sounds like an outlier opinion/study.

Here, maybe if I do it in larger type:

Science is not about "consensus" versus "outlier" opinions. Is the hypothesis supported by observations, or not? That's all that matters. As Dr. Spencer's work indicates, the hypotheses of the climate models is terribly flawed.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline OregonSmock

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 8512
  • Mashing 'taters like an Old Country Buffet
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #37 on: June 12, 2013, 11:08:05 AM »
14 of the past 15 years have been the hottest years on record.  Seems like the science is legit. 

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 22196
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #38 on: June 12, 2013, 11:10:45 AM »
(1) Warming not ‘global’. It is shown in satellite data to be northern hemisphere only
 
(2) It is now not warming. Warming (global mean and northern hemisphere) stopped in the 1990s
 
(3) Models suggest atmosphere should warm 20% faster than surface but surface warming was 33% faster during the time satellites and surface observations used. This suggests GHG theory wrong, and surface temperature contaminated
 
(4) Temperatures longer term have been modified to enhance warming trend and minimize cyclical appearance. Station dropout, missing data, change of local siting, urbanization, instrumentation contaminate the record, producing exaggerating warming. The GAO scolded NOAA for poor compliance with siting standards.
 
(5) Those who create the temperature records have been shown in analysis and emails to take steps to eliminate inconvenient temperature trends like the Medieval Warm Period, the 1940s warm blip and cooling since 1998. Steps have included removal of the urban heat island adjustment and as Wigley suggested in a climategate email, introduce 0.15C of artificial cooling of global ocean temperatures near 1940.
 
(6) Forecast models have failed with temperature trends below even the assumed zero emission control scenarios
 
(7) Climate models all have a strong hot spot in the mid to high troposphere in the tropical regions. Weather balloons and satellite show no warming in this region the last 30 years.
 
(8) Ocean heat content was forecast to increase and was said to be the canary in the coal mine. It too has stalled according to NOAA PMEL. The warming was to be strongest in the tropics where the models were warming the atmosphere the most. No warming has been shown in the top 300 meters in the tropical Pacific back to the 1950s.
 
(9) Alarmists had predicted permanent El Nino but the last decade has featured 7 La Nina and just 3 El Nino years. This is related to the PDO and was predicted by those who look at natural factors.
 
(10) Alarmists had predicted much lower frequency of the negative modes of the AO and NAO due to warming. The trend has been the opposite with a record negative AO/NAO in 2009/10
 
(11) Alarmists predicted an increase in hurricane frequency and strength globally but the global activity had diminished after 2005 to a 30+ year low. The U.S. has gone seven consecutive years without a landfalling major hurricane, the longest stretch since the 1860s
 
(12) Alarmists have predicted a significant increase in heat records but despite heat last two summers, the 1930s to 1950s still greatly dominated the heat records. Even in Texas at the center of the 2011 heat wave, the long term (since 1895) trends in both temperature and precipitation are flat. And when stations with over 80 years of temperature data were considered, the number of heat records last July were not extraordinary relative to past hot summers.
 
(13) Extremes of rainfall and drought were predicted to increase but except during periods of strong El Nino and La Nina, no trends are seen
 
(14) Alarmists indicated winter would become warmer and short. The last 15 years has seen a decline in winter temperatures in all regions. In places winter have been the coldest and longest in decades and even centuries.
 
(15) Alarmists had indicated snow would become increasingly rare in middle latitudes especially in the big cities where warming would be greatest. All time snow records were set in virtually all the major cities and northern hemisphere snow coverage in winter has increased with 4 of the top 5 years since 2007/08. Also among the east coast high impact snowstorms tracked by NOAA (NESIS), 11 of the 46 have occurred since 2009.
 
(16) Alarmists had indicated a decline of Antarctic ice due to warming.  The upward trends since 1979 continues.
 
(17) Alarmists had indicated Greenland and arctic ice melt would accelerate. The arctic ice tracks with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the IARC shows the ice cover was similarly reduced in the 1950s when the Atlantic was last in a similar warm mode. In Greenland, the warmth of the 1930s and 1940s still dominates the records and longer term temperatures have declined.
 
(18) Sea level rise was to accelerate upward due to melting ice and warming. Sea levels actually slowed in the late 20th century and have declined or flattened the last few years. Manipulation of data (adjustment for land rises following the last glaciation) has been applied to hide this from the public.
 
(19) Alarmists claimed that drought western snowpack would diminish and forest fires would increase in summer. Snowpack and water equivalent were at or near record levels in recent winters from Alaska to the Pacific Northwest and Northern Rockies. Glaciers are advancing.  Fires have declined.
 
(20) Alaska was said to be warming with retreating glaciers. But that warming is tied intimately to the PDO and thr North Pacific pattern NP and happens instantly with the flips from cold to warm and warm to cold. Two of the coldest and snowiest winters on records occurred since the PDO/NP flipped cold again (2007/08 and 2011/12). January 2012 was the coldest on record in many towns and cities and snowfall was running 160 inches above normal in parts of the south. Anchorage Alaska set an all time record for seasonal snow in 2011/12. In 2007/08, glaciers all advanced for the first time since the Little Ice Age. In 2011/12, the Bering Sea ice set a new high in the satellite era. Latest ever ice out date records were set in May 2013.
 
(21) Mt. Kilimanjaro glacier was to disappear due to global warming. Temperatures show no warming in recent decades. The reduction in glacial ice was due to deforestation near the base and the state of the AMO. The glaciers have advanced again in recent years
 
(22) Polar bears were claimed to be threatened. Polar bear populations instead have increased to record levels and threaten the populace.
 
(23) Australian drought was forecast to become permanent. Steps to protect against floods were defunded. Major flooding did major damage and rainfall has been abundant in recent years tied to the PDO and La Nina as predicted by honest scientists in Australia. All years with La Nina and cold PDO composited show this rainfall. Drought was associated with El Ninos and warm PDO fro 1977 to 1998
 
(24) The office of the Inspector General report found that the EPA cut corners and short-circuited the required peer review process for its December 2009 endangerment finding, which is the foundation for EPA’s plan to regulate greenhouse gases. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) report confirmed that EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program-which EPA acknowledges is the “scientific foundation for decisions” - is flawed, echoing previous concerns from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) that the agency is basing its decisions on shoddy scientific work.
 
(25) Of 18,531 citations in the 2007 IPCC Assessment Report, 5,587 or 30% were non-peer-reviewed material, including activist tracts, press releases, and in one amazing case, “Version One” of a Draft. In important instances, IPCC lead authors chose non-peer-reviewed material, or papers of low credibility, favoring their argument, in the face of prolific peer-reviewed material to the contrary. Instances include alleged climate relevance to malaria, hurricanes, species extinction, and sea levels.

Offline OregonSmock

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 8512
  • Mashing 'taters like an Old Country Buffet
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #39 on: June 12, 2013, 11:11:56 AM »
Like I said, confirmation bias. 

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 22196
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #40 on: June 12, 2013, 11:15:20 AM »
Like I said, confirmation bias.

You only parrot the warmist propaganda


Offline OregonSmock

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 8512
  • Mashing 'taters like an Old Country Buffet
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #41 on: June 12, 2013, 11:19:50 AM »
Like I said, confirmation bias.

You only parrot the warmist propaganda


Yep, I tend to believe science over outlier opinions and studies funded by special interest groups. 

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 22196
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #42 on: June 12, 2013, 11:22:46 AM »
Like I said, confirmation bias.

You only parrot the warmist propaganda


Yep, I tend to believe science over outlier opinions and studies funded by special interest groups.

I tend to believe the people who actually study the lemming herd scientists all lining up at the trough to get their hands on billions of dollars of research funding . . . the same people who work hard to thwart, misdirect, hide and obfuscate the situation when they are caught manipulating data to generate an outcome that will only garner them more research funding.


Offline OregonSmock

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 8512
  • Mashing 'taters like an Old Country Buffet
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #43 on: June 12, 2013, 11:25:10 AM »
Like I said, confirmation bias.

You only parrot the warmist propaganda


Yep, I tend to believe science over outlier opinions and studies funded by special interest groups.

I tend to believe the people who actually study the lemming herd scientists all lining up at the trough to get their hands on billions of dollars of research funding . . . the same people who work hard to thwart, misdirect, hide and obfuscate the situation when they are caught manipulating data to generate an outcome that will only garner them more research funding.


What would you say if the Koch brothers funded a study that confirmed climate change? 


http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/28/602151/bombshell-koch-funded-study-finds-global-warming-is-real-on-the-high-end-and-essentially-all-due-to-carbon-pollution/

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 22196
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #44 on: June 12, 2013, 11:26:19 AM »
I couldn't care less about the Koch Brothers.   They are puny in comparison to what agenda based gov't scientists are getting to fund research to provide to political appointees to advance agendas.


Offline OregonSmock

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 8512
  • Mashing 'taters like an Old Country Buffet
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #45 on: June 12, 2013, 11:29:18 AM »
I couldn't care less about the Koch Brothers.   They are puny in comparison to what agenda based gov't scientists are getting to fund research to provide to political appointees to advance agendas.


So all of the research is bullshit, then, except for the research that meets your confirmation bias standard? 

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 22196
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #46 on: June 12, 2013, 11:33:45 AM »
I couldn't care less about the Koch Brothers.   They are puny in comparison to what agenda based gov't scientists are getting to fund research to provide to political appointees to advance agendas.


Like I said, confirmation bias.  You're going to be a climate change denier until the day you die.

Not a denier at all, I just listen to both sides rather than only siding with people who have clearly shown a willingness to allow politics, propaganda and a strong desire to live a life off the public largesse to guide their "science".   

The military/industrial/intelligence complex needs their bogeyman to keep their over $1 billion dollars in annual funding.   The Warmist Propagandists need their scare mongering to keep their millions/billions in funding.



Offline OregonSmock

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 8512
  • Mashing 'taters like an Old Country Buffet
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #47 on: June 12, 2013, 11:42:01 AM »
I couldn't care less about the Koch Brothers.   They are puny in comparison to what agenda based gov't scientists are getting to fund research to provide to political appointees to advance agendas.


Like I said, confirmation bias.  You're going to be a climate change denier until the day you die.

Not a denier at all, I just listen to both sides rather than only siding with people who have clearly shown a willingness to allow politics, propaganda and a strong desire to live a life off the public largesse to guide their "science".   

The military/industrial/intelligence complex needs their bogeyman to keep their over $1 billion dollars in annual funding.   The Warmist Propagandists need their scare mongering to keep their millions/billions in funding.


Oh okay... so you're not a denier, you just choose to believe the studies that are funded by little energy companies like Exxon Mobil and Shell instead of the studies that are funded by the public.  Makes sense.

Offline husserl

  • Fan
  • *
  • Posts: 128
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #48 on: June 12, 2013, 11:43:01 AM »
What's so funny about the ocean thing?  I don't want to miss out on anything super hilarious.

Because the klimate krazies will leave no stone unturned trying to find that elusive warming. The latest peer-reviewed study suggests it may be hiding in peoples' ovens. Crazy stuff.
Huge stone.  Obvious place to look.  Still don't get it. 

And why does the graph only focus on the (mis)match between models and atmospheric observations in the tropics?

Two reasons: First because, as the article you excerpted explains, most of the models predicted that the most warming would indeed occur in the troposphere. Thus, it was only fair to compare apples to apples. Second, atmospheric measurements are more reliable than surface-based measurements, which are more prone to variability based on changes in land use as opposed to "climate change."

1. John Christy et al. report that atmospheric data provide a good match for the models.  Except for the tropics, where the mismatch is most likely due to data errors. 
2. John Christy makes a chart that only shows the tropical discrepancy which, again, he said is probably an artifact of bad data.   
3. Roy Spencer throws the chart onto his blog.
4. K-S-U-Wildcats! sees blog.  Declares all the models wrong.  Claims that this particular set of data was cherry picked because of its superior reliability. 

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 22196
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #49 on: June 12, 2013, 11:44:02 AM »
I have never seen any study funded by Exxon or Mobil Beems, but that piece of Warmist propaganda is a long and tired triste and has proven to out dated and miniscule in the grand scheme of all REAL climate study.

The Fraud of "consensus science".

http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/204-exposed-academic-fraud-in-new-climate-science-consensus-claim.html

Mr. Cook, who owns and runs the controversial and confusingly named alarmist blog, Skeptical Science, is Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland, Australia. His paper, appearing in the journal "Environmental Research Letters"  has added real irony for its claim that there really is "a striking discrepancy between public perception and reality."
 
But as more independent analysts look into Cook's claims the less reliable they seem. Another scientist quick to report being misrepresented by the new study is Dr. Nicola Scafetta who spoke of the “ utter dishonesty” at work. While Dr. Nir J. Shaviv of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, when asked whether Cook's study reliably reported his paper, replied “Nope… it is not an accurate representation.”
 
Now Cook's “97% consensus” study is being met by a backlash from the very heart of European green policy. Once solidly pro-green Germany sees its flagship news magazine, Spiegel Online, quick to throw cold water over Cook's claims.