goemaw.com

General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 09, 2013, 08:22:12 AM

Title: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 09, 2013, 08:22:12 AM
Doesn't the whole man made climate change hysteria fall apart?

(http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 10, 2013, 01:03:50 PM
BUT THE MODELS ARE MADE FROM SCIENCES!!!

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 10, 2013, 02:34:47 PM
So the models are all wrong, and "over the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar." (http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions) These are not good days for the carbon alarmists. Seems like about all they've got left is some hope that all the warming is "hiding deep in the oceans."

I'm hard pressed to think of a bigger fraud promoted by such a significant chunk of the "scientific community" for as long as this has. Any ideas?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: EMAWmeister on June 10, 2013, 05:12:54 PM
If you can :dnr: a graph, then :dnr:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 10, 2013, 10:08:41 PM
If you can :dnr: a graph, then :dnr:

Willful ignorance, yay.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Cire on June 10, 2013, 10:17:07 PM
Another reason to plant trees at bsfs
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: steve dave on June 11, 2013, 07:05:41 AM
Another reason to plant trees at bsfs

yep
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 11, 2013, 09:28:57 AM
Hot off the presses, this isn't from the Onion - it's the New York Times: What to Make of a Warming Plateau (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/earth/what-to-make-of-a-climate-change-plateau.html?_r=0). Some of the best excerpts:

Quote
As unlikely as this may sound, we have lucked out in recent years when it comes to global warming. The rise in the surface temperature of earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that. And that lull in warming has occurred even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace.

Oh, we just got lucky! Reminds of the Time or Newsweek (I think) article a few years back that attributed the lull in warming to the "earth fighting back." :lol:

Quote
The slowdown is a bit of a mystery to climate scientists. :lol: True, the basic theory that predicts a warming of the planet in response to human emissions does not suggest that warming should be smooth and continuous. To the contrary, in a climate system still dominated by natural variability, there is every reason to think the warming will proceed in fits and starts.

But given how much is riding on the scientific forecast, [$$$] the practitioners of climate science would like to understand exactly what is going on. They admit that they do not, even though some potential mechanisms of the slowdown have been suggested. The situation highlights important gaps in our knowledge of the climate system, some of which cannot be closed until we get better measurements from high in space and from deep in the ocean.

So... the science isn't settled? And I love the "the warming's gotta be hiding deep in the ocean!" meme. Congrats Democrats - man made global warming has become your Iraq WMD.

Quote
As you might imagine, those dismissive of climate-change concerns have made much of this warming plateau. They typically argue that “global warming stopped 15 years ago” or some similar statement, and then assert that this disproves the whole notion that greenhouse gases are causing warming.

Rarely do they mention that most of the warmest years in the historical record have occurred recently. Moreover, their claim depends on careful selection of the starting and ending points. The starting point is almost always 1998, a particularly warm year because of a strong El Niño weather pattern.

Scientists and statisticians reject this sort of selective use of numbers, and when they calculate the long-term temperature trends for the earth, they conclude that it continues to warm through time. Despite the recent lull, it is an open question whether the pace of that warming has undergone any lasting shift.

So now the skeptics are the ones "cherry picking" the numbers?!?! This, from the crowd that conveniently ignores pre-industrial age eras of much higher temperatures?!?! :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on June 11, 2013, 09:48:00 AM
Willful ignorance, yay.

 :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 11, 2013, 09:59:08 AM
Assume some of you have read this?

http://www.lomborg.com/publications/cool_it
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 11, 2013, 10:02:59 AM
Breaking: Global Warming has been spotted!!!

(http://magickcanoe.com/nova/seamonsters-1-large.jpg)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: steve dave on June 11, 2013, 10:21:05 AM
kick their asses k-s-u-w
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on June 11, 2013, 11:33:40 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/QycL1JO.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/pq9NjD9.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/QGGu2Jm.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/bikHSmm.jpg)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on June 11, 2013, 01:08:04 PM
I'm not an alarmist by any means, but the Earth is indeed warming.  Climate change is a real thing.  14 of the last 15 years have been the hottest average global temperatures on record.  The chance that that is just a coincidence is less than 1 divided by all of the stars in the universe.


 :nerd:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 11, 2013, 01:08:50 PM
Here is an artist's rendition of global warming. We'd better enact a trillion dollar carbon tax immediately. It might devastate the economy, but it's a small price to pay compared with what this thing will do.

(http://theseamonster.net/wp-content/uploads/death-of-a-sea-monster1.jpg)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 11, 2013, 01:09:21 PM
You should read that book I linked.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on June 11, 2013, 01:15:52 PM
Here is an artist's rendition of global warming. We'd better enact a trillion dollar carbon tax immediately. It might devastate the economy, but it's a small price to pay compared with what this thing will do.



A carbon tax creates a disincentive for a negative externality (pollution), which lowers CO2 levels, improves the environment, and lowers health care costs in the long run.  Replace the federal income tax with a carbon tax, and I think both sides would be happy. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on June 11, 2013, 01:49:31 PM
I'm not an alarmist by any means, but the Earth is indeed warming.  Climate change is a real thing.  14 of the last 15 years have been the hottest average global temperatures on record.  The chance that that is just a coincidence is less than 1 divided by all of the stars in the universe.


 :nerd:

By "hottest on record" you mean in the last 150 or so years since we have had accurate thermometers in some parts of the world.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 11, 2013, 02:08:42 PM
I'm not an alarmist by any means, but the Earth is indeed warming.  Climate change is a real thing.  14 of the last 15 years have been the hottest average global temperatures on record.  The chance that that is just a coincidence is less than 1 divided by all of the stars in the universe.


 :nerd:

You should probably be made aware that the graph starting this thread shows that your punitive carbon tax would have little to no affect on global temperatures.  I don't thinks it's even in dispute that a punitive carbon tax would have a devastating effect on the US economy.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 11, 2013, 02:16:43 PM
Here is an artist's rendition of global warming. We'd better enact a trillion dollar carbon tax immediately. It might devastate the economy, but it's a small price to pay compared with what this thing will do.

A carbon tax creates a disincentive for a negative externality (pollution), which lowers CO2 levels, improves the environment, and lowers health care costs in the long run.  Replace the federal income tax with a carbon tax, and I think both sides would be happy.

Oh, so now we're switching from climate change to simply improving air quality? Good thing this carbon tax will apply to China.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Unruly on June 11, 2013, 02:36:39 PM
I can't WAIT till we have orange air we can swim through like China can.


I am sure that does wonders for prolonging the human life span.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Cire on June 11, 2013, 02:55:25 PM
it seems to me that the whole "are we the ones doing it?" argument is semantics.  No?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Jabeez on June 11, 2013, 03:01:32 PM
Here is an artist's rendition of global warming. We'd better enact a trillion dollar carbon tax immediately. It might devastate the economy, but it's a small price to pay compared with what this thing will do.

A carbon tax creates a disincentive for a negative externality (pollution), which lowers CO2 levels, improves the environment, and lowers health care costs in the long run.  Replace the federal income tax with a carbon tax, and I think both sides would be happy.

Oh, so now we're switching from climate change to simply improving air quality? Good thing this carbon tax will apply to China.



You guys are all dumbasses, Global Dimming:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/understanding-global-dimming.html

Quote
Like enormous clouds of volcanic ash, some forms of air pollution can significantly reduce the amount of sunlight reaching Earth's surface and lower temperatures. Climate researcher James Hansen estimates that "global dimming" is cooling our planet by more than a degree Celsius (1.8°F) and fears that as we curb these types of air pollution, global warming may escalate to a point of no return. Here, trace the historic events that lead to our understanding of global dimming.
:horrorsurprise: :horrorsurprise:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on June 11, 2013, 03:16:19 PM
(http://americas-next-top-model.download-tvshows.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/americas-next-top-model.jpg)

WHAT IF THEY'RE ALL WRONG
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: steve dave on June 11, 2013, 03:17:33 PM
the left has no time for your science k-s-u-w
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OK_Cat on June 11, 2013, 03:19:07 PM
if the models are all wrong, you must call cheech and chong

(http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/_/14150483/Cheech++Chong.jpg)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: husserl 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 (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.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 11, 2013, 04:03:22 PM
WRT global dimming:

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/article/contrails-reduce-daily-temperature-range
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) 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 (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.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! 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."

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: MeatSauce 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?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock 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. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! 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.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! 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.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock 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. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 12, 2013, 11:06:52 AM
It's a few "outliers" against the politically and funding motivated herd.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! 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.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock 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. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones 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.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on June 12, 2013, 11:11:56 AM
Like I said, confirmation bias. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 12, 2013, 11:15:20 AM
Like I said, confirmation bias.

You only parrot the warmist propaganda

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock 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. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones 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.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock 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/ (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/)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones 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.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock 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? 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones 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.


Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock 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.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: husserl 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. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones 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.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on June 12, 2013, 12:42:13 PM
Dax, just stop.  You're too smart of a guy to not know that energy companies and billionaires like the Koch brothers are funding "studies" to refute the scientific consensus on climate change.  The funny thing is that the study from the Koch brothers actually backlashed, and confirmed what scientists have been reporting all along. 

I won't deny that there are global warming alarmists out there who take things to the other side of the extreme, but that's an entirely different conversation.  America's still trying to get to the point where a majority of the population believes that climate change is real.  People aren't having the necessary conversations about what we can actually do (if anything) to combat climate change.  Instead, the focus is on whether or not it's a hoax.  The scientific consensus is being disregarded by a significant portion of the population, and it's 100% politically motivated and perpetrated by the big energy companies. 

For a guy who knows everything there is to know about conspiracy theories, you're completely in the dark when it comes to the climate change debate in this country.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 12, 2013, 01:28:35 PM
You're too smart of a guy to not know that energy companies and billionaires like the Koch brothers are funding "studies" to refute the scientific consensus on climate change.  The funny thing is that the study from the Koch brothers actually backlashed, and confirmed what scientists have been reporting all along. 


Jesus Christ, naivete and delusion wrapped up in a tight little package.

FWIW, big energy has their hands deep in the "green" energy kitty
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 12, 2013, 01:47:11 PM
The concept isn't that hard to understand. Greenhouse gases trap heat. The quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increasing. Therefore, the earth is going to get hotter. LOL at going out with thermometers and tracking global temperature to try to prove anything. That's the global weather, not climate.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 12, 2013, 02:20:29 PM
Koch Bros:  okay Mr. Scientist, I'm going to pay you sacks of my dirty, filthy, hydrocarbon soaked cash to perform a study that shows climate change is bullshit.

Mr. Scientist:  You've got yourself a deal.

[One year later the Koch Bros. hydrocarbon tainted study is published by Mr. Scientist showing climate change is exactly as some guy says 97% of scientists say it is]

Koch Bros:  Waaauuuhhhht?!?!?  Mr. Scientist, we had a deal you bad person!

Mr. Scientist:  I know, I'm sorry, but I couldn't help it.

Koch Bros:  That's okay, thanks anyways.  Here are your sacks of money.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Unruly on June 12, 2013, 02:37:46 PM
I still really really want orange air that you can swim through.

We really need to shut down the EPA as I want to drink green water too.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on June 12, 2013, 02:44:59 PM
You're too smart of a guy to not know that energy companies and billionaires like the Koch brothers are funding "studies" to refute the scientific consensus on climate change.  The funny thing is that the study from the Koch brothers actually backlashed, and confirmed what scientists have been reporting all along. 


Jesus Christ, naivete and delusion wrapped up in a tight little package.

FWIW, big energy has their hands deep in the "green" energy kitty


Of course big energy is investing in green energy.  As long as it's profitable, why wouldn't they?  That has nothing to do with the fact that big energy wants to prevent legislation that will increase production costs and place more restrictions on pollution and CO2 emissions.  The sad thing is that these political groups and corporations have been successful in convincing fools like yourself that the scientific consensus is a hoax.   
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: illBisonYourdele on June 12, 2013, 03:33:09 PM
someone please tell me what this means....

"Over hundreds of millennia, Arctic permafrost soils have accumulated vast stores of organic carbon -- an estimated 1,400 to 1,850 petagrams of it (a petagram is 2.2 trillion pounds, or 1 billion metric tons). That's about half of all the estimated organic carbon stored in Earth's soils. In comparison, about 350 petagrams of carbon have been emitted from all fossil-fuel combustion and human activities since 1850. Most of this carbon is located in thaw-vulnerable topsoils within 10 feet (3 meters) of the surface.

Current climate models do not adequately account for the impact of climate change on permafrost and how its degradation may affect regional and global climate. Scientists want to know how much permafrost carbon may be vulnerable to release as Earth's climate warms, and how fast it may be released."
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 12, 2013, 03:54:58 PM
Scientific consensus is an oxymoron, like jumbo shrimp or great recession.

Bmwjhawk is a taggermoron, tagging senseless talking points all over the pit like some vandal would tag a picture of boobs or a male genitals on the sidewalk or a brick wall.  He doesn't know what any of it means, but he's sure it belongs there.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 12, 2013, 04:01:31 PM
The concept isn't that hard to understand. Greenhouse gases trap heat. The quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increasing. Therefore, the earth is going to get hotter. LOL at going out with thermometers and tracking global temperature to try to prove anything. That's the global weather, not climate.

You don't know what you're talking about quite yet but you're headed in the right direction.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 12, 2013, 04:43:24 PM
The concept isn't that hard to understand. Greenhouse gases trap heat. The quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increasing. Therefore, the earth is going to get hotter. LOL at going out with thermometers and tracking global temperature to try to prove anything. That's the global weather, not climate.

You don't know what you're talking about quite yet but you're headed in the right direction.

Feel free to elaborate.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 12, 2013, 04:47:36 PM

The concept isn't that hard to understand. Greenhouse gases trap heat. The quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increasing. Therefore, the earth is going to get hotter. LOL at going out with thermometers and tracking global temperature to try to prove anything. That's the global weather, not climate.

Funny. That's what the models said would happen too.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 12, 2013, 04:49:44 PM

The concept isn't that hard to understand. Greenhouse gases trap heat. The quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increasing. Therefore, the earth is going to get hotter. LOL at going out with thermometers and tracking global temperature to try to prove anything. That's the global weather, not climate.

Funny. That's what the models said would happen too.

Well, it's probably a good sign that the models are following the laws of thermodynamics.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on June 12, 2013, 05:33:51 PM

The concept isn't that hard to understand. Greenhouse gases trap heat. The quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increasing. Therefore, the earth is going to get hotter. LOL at going out with thermometers and tracking global temperature to try to prove anything. That's the global weather, not climate.

Funny. That's what the models said would happen too.

Well, it's probably a good sign that the models are following the laws of thermodynamics.

Do the models say the greenhouse gases are increasing, therefore it's getting hotter? Or, are the greenhouse gases increasing as a result of it getting hotter due to increased solar activity? 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 12, 2013, 05:53:35 PM

The concept isn't that hard to understand. Greenhouse gases trap heat. The quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increasing. Therefore, the earth is going to get hotter. LOL at going out with thermometers and tracking global temperature to try to prove anything. That's the global weather, not climate.

Funny. That's what the models said would happen too.

Well, it's probably a good sign that the models are following the laws of thermodynamics.

So you're saying that global temps aren't following the laws of thermodynamics? Holy crap. What's next to go? Gravity? We're so mumped.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Kat Kid on June 12, 2013, 08:48:38 PM
Koch Bros:  okay Mr. Scientist, I'm going to pay you sacks of my dirty, filthy, hydrocarbon soaked cash to perform a study that shows climate change is bullshit.

Mr. Scientist:  You've got yourself a deal.

[One year later the Koch Bros. hydrocarbon tainted study is published by Mr. Scientist showing climate change is exactly as some guy says 97% of scientists say it is]

Koch Bros:  Waaauuuhhhht?!?!?  Mr. Scientist, we had a deal you bad person!

Mr. Scientist:  I know, I'm sorry, but I couldn't help it.

Koch Bros:  That's okay, thanks anyways.  Here are your sacks of money.

I think this might be the best fake sugar dick post of all time.  no sarcasm.  Bravo.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on June 12, 2013, 09:06:11 PM
Koch Bros:  okay Mr. Scientist, I'm going to pay you sacks of my dirty, filthy, hydrocarbon soaked cash to perform a study that shows climate change is bullshit.

Mr. Scientist:  You've got yourself a deal.

[One year later the Koch Bros. hydrocarbon tainted study is published by Mr. Scientist showing climate change is exactly as some guy says 97% of scientists say it is]

Koch Bros:  Waaauuuhhhht?!?!?  Mr. Scientist, we had a deal you bad person!

Mr. Scientist:  I know, I'm sorry, but I couldn't help it.

Koch Bros:  That's okay, thanks anyways.  Here are your sacks of money.

I think this might be the best fake sugar dick post of all time.  no sarcasm.  Bravo.

I enjoyed it, too.  I could see it as a "tom the dancing bug" cartoon
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on June 12, 2013, 09:48:52 PM
man, the rate at which we're destroying this planet's biological diversity is sickening. everyone with an understanding of evolution has to agree with that much.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on June 12, 2013, 11:07:29 PM
man, the rate at which we're destroying this planet's biological diversity is sickening. everyone with an understanding of evolution has to agree with that much.

I would agree with this, but the elephant in the room is the human population explosion, not carbon dioxide. Until it becomes politically correct to talk about it, the destruction will continue, especially in the third world.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 12, 2013, 11:33:10 PM

The concept isn't that hard to understand. Greenhouse gases trap heat. The quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increasing. Therefore, the earth is going to get hotter. LOL at going out with thermometers and tracking global temperature to try to prove anything. That's the global weather, not climate.

Funny. That's what the models said would happen too.

Well, it's probably a good sign that the models are following the laws of thermodynamics.

Do the models say the greenhouse gases are increasing, therefore it's getting hotter? Or, are the greenhouse gases increasing as a result of it getting hotter due to increased solar activity?

They are models. They don't say anything. There is a measurable increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and that quantity is increasing. If you are going to model the climate, you have to account for that. The reason for the increase in greenhouse gas is completely irrelevant, but if you think the activities of man have absolutely nothing to do with it, you have your head in the sand.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 12, 2013, 11:35:06 PM

The concept isn't that hard to understand. Greenhouse gases trap heat. The quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increasing. Therefore, the earth is going to get hotter. LOL at going out with thermometers and tracking global temperature to try to prove anything. That's the global weather, not climate.

Funny. That's what the models said would happen too.

Well, it's probably a good sign that the models are following the laws of thermodynamics.

So you're saying that global temps aren't following the laws of thermodynamics? Holy crap. What's next to go? Gravity? We're so mumped.

You couldn't possibly be this stupid.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on June 13, 2013, 12:40:25 AM
I would agree with this, but the elephant in the room is the human population explosion, not carbon dioxide. Until it becomes politically correct to talk about it, the destruction will continue, especially in the third world.

we're like children.  stupid, stupid, stupid little children.  eff you, michigancat and dominique sutton.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 13, 2013, 07:48:54 AM
Smock is just spewing forth warmest propaganda about "Big Oil" and forgetting that entire sections of federal agencies engaged in climate research are receiving millions in taxpayer funding have been lead by Warmist Propagandists at the beck and call of those with the power of the purse string and a political agenda.


 



Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 13, 2013, 08:04:14 AM

The concept isn't that hard to understand. Greenhouse gases trap heat. The quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increasing. Therefore, the earth is going to get hotter. LOL at going out with thermometers and tracking global temperature to try to prove anything. That's the global weather, not climate.

Funny. That's what the models said would happen too.

Well, it's probably a good sign that the models are following the laws of thermodynamics.

So you're saying that global temps aren't following the laws of thermodynamics? Holy crap. What's next to go? Gravity? We're so mumped.

You couldn't possibly be this stupid.

Just having a little fun with your smug statement that man made global warming theory is just "the laws of thermodynamics." The models are the hypotheses for man made global warming. The hypothesis is everything in science. Because the models are wrong, this indicates that the "science" of man made global warming is shaky at best, as even the NYT must concede in the article linked above.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 13, 2013, 09:29:46 AM

The concept isn't that hard to understand. Greenhouse gases trap heat. The quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increasing. Therefore, the earth is going to get hotter. LOL at going out with thermometers and tracking global temperature to try to prove anything. That's the global weather, not climate.

Funny. That's what the models said would happen too.

Well, it's probably a good sign that the models are following the laws of thermodynamics.

So you're saying that global temps aren't following the laws of thermodynamics? Holy crap. What's next to go? Gravity? We're so mumped.

You couldn't possibly be this stupid.

Just having a little fun with your smug statement that man made global warming theory is just "the laws of thermodynamics." The models are the hypotheses for man made global warming. The hypothesis is everything in science. Because the models are wrong, this indicates that the "science" of man made global warming is shaky at best, as even the NYT must concede in the article linked above.

The models are not set up to prove or disprove climate change. The changes in the atmosphere do that. The models are set up to try to predict the effects, and of course they are not perfect.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 13, 2013, 09:49:06 AM
The concept isn't that hard to understand. Greenhouse gases trap heat. The quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increasing. Therefore, the earth is going to get hotter. LOL at going out with thermometers and tracking global temperature to try to prove anything. That's the global weather, not climate.

You don't know what you're talking about quite yet but you're headed in the right direction.

Feel free to elaborate.

Well the thermal conductivity of CO2 is 0.105 (W/m*K).  Air is 0.0243 (both at 0 deg C).  So it appears air is a better insulator than carbon dioxide.  How in the world is air with an increased concentration of CO2 trapping heat?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: EMAWican on June 13, 2013, 10:22:55 AM
The concept isn't that hard to understand. Greenhouse gases trap heat. The quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increasing. Therefore, the earth is going to get hotter. LOL at going out with thermometers and tracking global temperature to try to prove anything. That's the global weather, not climate.

You don't know what you're talking about quite yet but you're headed in the right direction.

Feel free to elaborate.

Well the thermal conductivity of CO2 is 0.105 (W/m*K).  Air is 0.0243 (both at 0 deg C).  So it appears air is a better insulator than carbon dioxide.  How in the world is air with an increased concentration of CO2 trapping heat?

The "lifetime in the atmosphere" of CO2 is much higher than O2, for example.  Basically, based on the oxygen and carbon cycles, oxygen is cycled through more quickly and develops offsets that have a net loss in heat, whereas CO2 has a slower cycle and develops a net gain in heat.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 13, 2013, 10:37:55 AM

The concept isn't that hard to understand. Greenhouse gases trap heat. The quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increasing. Therefore, the earth is going to get hotter. LOL at going out with thermometers and tracking global temperature to try to prove anything. That's the global weather, not climate.

Funny. That's what the models said would happen too.

Well, it's probably a good sign that the models are following the laws of thermodynamics.

So you're saying that global temps aren't following the laws of thermodynamics? Holy crap. What's next to go? Gravity? We're so mumped.

You couldn't possibly be this stupid.

Just having a little fun with your smug statement that man made global warming theory is just "the laws of thermodynamics." The models are the hypotheses for man made global warming. The hypothesis is everything in science. Because the models are wrong, this indicates that the "science" of man made global warming is shaky at best, as even the NYT must concede in the article linked above.

The models are not set up to prove or disprove climate change. The changes in the atmosphere do that. The models are set up to try to predict the effects, and of course they are not perfect.

That's what a hypothesis is, dumbass. It's a prediction, based on a theory. You then test to see whether the prediction is accurate. That is science. The man made global warming hypotheses - i.e., the models - are wrong.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: husserl on June 13, 2013, 10:56:24 AM
link?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 13, 2013, 11:03:36 AM
That's what a hypothesis is, dumbass. It's a prediction, based on a theory. You then test to see whether the prediction is accurate. That is science. The man made global warming hypotheses - i.e., the models - are wrong.

You are almost right here, but at the same time you are very wrong. I have never seen a scientific model that just completely nails something like the weather. When the model is off, you look at the inputs and try to figure out where you went wrong. Without actually knowing what those inputs were vs the actual physical conditions today, we cannot really say whether these models are good or not.

I will ask this, though. What do you think contributes to a location's climate?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on June 13, 2013, 11:06:54 AM
That's what a hypothesis is, dumbass. It's a prediction, based on a theory. You then test to see whether the prediction is accurate. That is science. The man made global warming hypotheses - i.e., the models - are wrong.

You are almost right here, but at the same time you are very wrong. I have never seen a scientific model that just completely nails something like the weather. When the model is off, you look at the inputs and try to figure out where you went wrong. Without actually knowing what those inputs were vs the actual physical conditions today, we cannot really say whether these models are good or not.

I will ask this, though. What do you think contributes to a location's climate?

God.  God makes it how it should be so that we can dominate the Earth's ass and make it as much of our bitch as we can. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 13, 2013, 11:15:13 AM
http://www.trulia.com/voices/Home_Buying/Help_Should_we_buy_a_home_in_a_year_flood_plain-129057 (http://www.trulia.com/voices/Home_Buying/Help_Should_we_buy_a_home_in_a_year_flood_plain-129057)

Quote

Help! Should we buy a home in a 100-year flood plain?

Asked by Cathy, 30033 • Tue May 26, 2009

We have found a great house, unfortunately it's one of the lowest houses on the street and it's in an AE Zone / 100-year flood plain. The creek is 200 feet behind the house. The seller has lived in the house for 10 years and the house has never flooded. Our insurance company has quoted us $1658 per year for additional flood insurance. Does this seem high? Will it be hard for us to resell this house given the flood zone location?
0 votes • Share • Follow Question • Flag • Home Buying in 30033

Is this just another case of those dumbass scientists getting it wrong yet again? Probably. The place hasn't flooded in more than 10 years!
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: 8manpick on June 13, 2013, 11:25:58 AM
CNS gets it

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 2

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 13, 2013, 11:28:12 AM
http://www.trulia.com/voices/Home_Buying/Help_Should_we_buy_a_home_in_a_year_flood_plain-129057 (http://www.trulia.com/voices/Home_Buying/Help_Should_we_buy_a_home_in_a_year_flood_plain-129057)

Quote

Help! Should we buy a home in a 100-year flood plain?

Asked by Cathy, 30033 • Tue May 26, 2009

We have found a great house, unfortunately it's one of the lowest houses on the street and it's in an AE Zone / 100-year flood plain. The creek is 200 feet behind the house. The seller has lived in the house for 10 years and the house has never flooded. Our insurance company has quoted us $1658 per year for additional flood insurance. Does this seem high? Will it be hard for us to resell this house given the flood zone location?
0 votes • Share • Follow Question • Flag • Home Buying in 30033

Is this just another case of those dumbass scientists getting it wrong yet again? Probably. The place hasn't flooded in more than 10 years!

Good analogy. Spot on. :facepalm: A 100 year flood plain is an area that has a 1% chance of flooding in any given year. This has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that man made global warming models projected much greater warming than has actually occurred. The hypotheses are wrong, and must be re-examined.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on June 13, 2013, 11:57:06 AM
Cathy is going to wish she didn't buy that place when all the ice melts and that creek backs up and swallows her entire house.  Neighbors should be stoked though.  New neighborhood lake complete with structure at bottom for fish habitat.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on June 13, 2013, 12:19:27 PM
That's what a hypothesis is, dumbass. It's a prediction, based on a theory. You then test to see whether the prediction is accurate. That is science. The man made global warming hypotheses - i.e., the models - are wrong.

You are almost right here, but at the same time you are very wrong. I have never seen a scientific model that just completely nails something like the weather. When the model is off, you look at the inputs and try to figure out where you went wrong. Without actually knowing what those inputs were vs the actual physical conditions today, we cannot really say whether these models are good or not.

I will ask this, though. What do you think contributes to a location's climate?

This is why I always laugh when warmers like beems and algore say "the science is done, and anyone that doesn't believe is a denier!"  Climate isn't really a science at this point, and may never be. It's really an art.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 13, 2013, 12:30:28 PM
CO2 MAY be causing AGW/Climate Change, it MAY be influencing AGW/Climate Change . . . other forms of Greenhouse Gases MAY be causing/influencing AGW/Climate Change.

Yes, it is absolutely laughable when the warmist run around saying the "science is settled" and calling anyone who rightfully says there's no way the "science is settled" a "DENIER".

Warmists parrot the same thing over and over again . . . it's as if all other forms of climate forcing, natural variability etc. etc. don't exist.   In their world there can only be on cause for "Climate Change" CO2 (or other Greenhouse Gases). 

I just re-read a number of the ClimateGate emails (likely "hacked" by a Whistle Blower) and it's laughable to think that anyone still trumpets "out of context" and things of that ilk to explain those frauds.   It was concentrated effort of manipulation, obfuscation, fraud and scientific thuggery . . . and some of those guys are lucky they either weren't fined significantly if not sent to jail for a little while for their clear violation of FOIA (related UK) laws.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 13, 2013, 01:14:43 PM
The concept isn't that hard to understand. Greenhouse gases trap heat. The quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increasing. Therefore, the earth is going to get hotter. LOL at going out with thermometers and tracking global temperature to try to prove anything. That's the global weather, not climate.

You don't know what you're talking about quite yet but you're headed in the right direction.

Feel free to elaborate.

Well the thermal conductivity of CO2 is 0.105 (W/m*K).  Air is 0.0243 (both at 0 deg C).  So it appears air is a better insulator than carbon dioxide.  How in the world is air with an increased concentration of CO2 trapping heat?

The "lifetime in the atmosphere" of CO2 is much higher than O2, for example.  Basically, based on the oxygen and carbon cycles, oxygen is cycled through more quickly and develops offsets that have a net loss in heat, whereas CO2 has a slower cycle and develops a net gain in heat.

We're focused on the trapping of the heat first.  Then we'll get into your chemistry voo doo.  I bid you good day, sir! 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on June 13, 2013, 01:39:21 PM
97% of scientists agree that humans are contributing to climate change.  How much we're contributing is up for debate, but there's no doubt that humans are responsible for at least some of the increase in average global temperature.  I have never once claimed that climate science is an exact science, or that every single model is the exact replica of the Earth's future climate.  Those are strawmen arguments that weak-minded people use to dilute and suppress the discussion.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 13, 2013, 01:43:28 PM
97% of scientists agree that humans are contributing to climate change.  How much we're contributing is up for debate, but there's no doubt that humans are responsible for at least some of the increase in average global temperature.  I have never once claimed that climate science is an exact science, or that every single model is the exact replica of the Earth's future climate.  Those are strawmen arguments that weak-minded people use to dilute and suppress the discussion.

I'm interested to know:


- is any perceived change a net good or bad?
- what's the threshold (of our contribution) for giving a damn?
- are there more pressing problems we ought to solve first with the resources dedicated to answering the first two?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: puniraptor on June 13, 2013, 01:46:04 PM
jesus, emo. the greenhouse effect has nothing to do with insulation. Even global warming deniers accept the greenhouse effect as science. And they also accept CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 13, 2013, 02:01:01 PM
97% of scientists agree that humans are contributing to climate change.  How much we're contributing is up for debate, but there's no doubt that humans are responsible for at least some of the increase in average global temperature.  I have never once claimed that climate science is an exact science, or that every single model is the exact replica of the Earth's future climate.  Those are strawmen arguments that weak-minded people use to dilute and suppress the discussion.

Who in the eff is saying humans don't impact the environment?   That's just a dumbass lowest common denominator statement that warmists use to garner attention . . . tossing around 97%, "consensus science" and "undeniable truth".   Of course it's an undeniable truth that human beings impact environment and thus likely IMPACT climate, what scientist would even attempt to debate that?    The problem the warmest scare mongers have is that they want to pin "climate change" on to mankind and mankind alone, and in most cases, specifically to one naturally existing gas.  That's absolutely absurd.   Don't try and dance around your clear leanings with such all inclusive statements.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on June 13, 2013, 02:19:18 PM
97% of scientists agree that humans are contributing to climate change.  How much we're contributing is up for debate, but there's no doubt that humans are responsible for at least some of the increase in average global temperature.  I have never once claimed that climate science is an exact science, or that every single model is the exact replica of the Earth's future climate.  Those are strawmen arguments that weak-minded people use to dilute and suppress the discussion.

Who in the eff is saying humans don't impact the environment?
  That's just a dumbass lowest common denominator statement that warmists use to garner attention . . . tossing around 97%, "consensus science" and "undeniable truth".   Of course it's an undeniable truth that human beings impact environment and thus likely IMPACT climate, what scientist would even attempt to debate that?    The problem the warmest scare mongers have is that they want to pin "climate change" on to mankind and mankind alone, and in most cases, specifically to one naturally existing gas.  That's absolutely absurd.   Don't try and dance around your clear leanings with such all inclusive statements.


Quit playing dumb.  A huge portion of the population thinks that climate change is a hoax.  Visit Texas sometime if you don't believe me.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 13, 2013, 02:19:49 PM
97% of scientists agree that humans are contributing to climate change.  How much we're contributing is up for debate, but there's no doubt that humans are responsible for at least some of the increase in average global temperature.  I have never once claimed that climate science is an exact science, or that every single model is the exact replica of the Earth's future climate.  Those are strawmen arguments that weak-minded people use to dilute and suppress the discussion.

Who in the eff is saying humans don't impact the environment?   That's just a dumbass lowest common denominator statement that warmists use to garner attention . . . tossing around 97%, "consensus science" and "undeniable truth".   Of course it's an undeniable truth that human beings impact environment, what scientist would even attempt to debate that?    The problem the warmest scare mongers have is that they want to pin "climate change" on to mankind and mankind alone, and in most cases, specifically to one naturally existing gas.  That's absolutely absurd.   Don't try and dance around your clear leanings with such all inclusive statements.

Exactly. To say that "97% agree, it's just matter of how much" - even if that were true - is completely meaningless. First, "consensus" is not science. Second, there's a hellofalotof difference between, hypothetically, man made CO2 emissions contributing 10% of the increase in warming versus 90% (warming of maybe a whopping half degree Celsius, no less). Third, whomever among the "97%" create the climate models have drastically overstated the impact of such emissions on temperature.

This isn't just some academic debate. Policy with far reaching consequences is being made on these flawed models. The billions spent on subsidies to "green" energy is a fart in the wind compared to the cost of the regulatory burdens imposed.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 13, 2013, 02:22:27 PM
jesus, emo. the greenhouse effect has nothing to do with insulation. Even global warming deniers accept the greenhouse effect as science. And they also accept CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect)

Never said it did, Nuts Kicked did, and I was in the process of refuting that.  Thanks for playing though.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: puniraptor on June 13, 2013, 02:29:26 PM
jesus, emo. the greenhouse effect has nothing to do with insulation. Even global warming deniers accept the greenhouse effect as science. And they also accept CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect)

Never said it did, Nuts Kicked did, and I was in the process of refuting that.  Thanks for playing though.

okay, thanks!
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on June 13, 2013, 02:31:51 PM
97% of scientists agree that humans are contributing to climate change.  How much we're contributing is up for debate, but there's no doubt that humans are responsible for at least some of the increase in average global temperature.  I have never once claimed that climate science is an exact science, or that every single model is the exact replica of the Earth's future climate.  Those are strawmen arguments that weak-minded people use to dilute and suppress the discussion.

Every living thing on Earth contributes to climate change, and the climate has always been changing since the dawn of time. 100% of scientists will agree that the sun and ocean currents contribute nearly all of the factors that affect climate. Human activities certainly contribute an infinitesimal amount of input into the equation, but certainly not enough to warrant monetary penalties on anyone or anything. We all want clean air, and we should be working on clean fuels, but not at the public's expense. The person or company that discovers these technologies will become very rich, and I can guarantee there are private entities working on it now, without any tax dollars. 

Al Gore and academia are in it for the money, and the government is in it for the power.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 13, 2013, 02:43:33 PM
jesus, emo. the greenhouse effect has nothing to do with insulation. Even global warming deniers accept the greenhouse effect as science. And they also accept CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect)

Never said it did, Nuts Kicked did, and I was in the process of refuting that.  Thanks for playing though.

I'm pretty sure that I did not, but whatever floats your boat I guess.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Unruly on June 13, 2013, 02:44:16 PM
What do you think should be done then KSUW?

Should we get rid of the EPA and let the free market decide what is acceptable levels of toxins in the environment?
Title: If the models are all wrong
Post by: HeinBallz on June 13, 2013, 02:52:47 PM
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.

Because government isn't a special interest group.  Isn't it liberals that are always occupying things and complaining they can't afford lobbyist? 

The concept isn't that hard to understand. Greenhouse gases trap heat. The quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increasing. Therefore, the earth is going to get hotter. LOL at going out with thermometers and tracking global temperature to try to prove anything. That's the global weather, not climate.

Do greenhouse gases not also reflect heat?  If not, would additional heat generated cause more water vapor, which does indeed reflect heat? 

Seems to me, this should have always been about air quality and general health, instead of fear mongering and doom and gloom scenarios.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: EllRobersonisInnocent on June 13, 2013, 02:55:33 PM
What do you think should be done then KSUW?

Should we get rid of the EPA and let the free market decide what is acceptable levels of toxins in the environment?

What a great idea!

Yours truly,

David & Charles Koch
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 13, 2013, 02:59:31 PM
jesus, emo. the greenhouse effect has nothing to do with insulation. Even global warming deniers accept the greenhouse effect as science. And they also accept CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect)

Never said it did, Nuts Kicked did, and I was in the process of refuting that.  Thanks for playing though.

I'm pretty sure that I did not, but whatever floats your boat I guess.

Was really just a misuse of terminology.  But, part of my larger point was that people aren't generally educated enough to make an informed decision.  All they can do is agree or disagree.  And whichever they do is lacking any sort of substantiated conviction.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 13, 2013, 03:13:01 PM
What do you think should be done then KSUW?

Should we get rid of the EPA and let the free market decide what is acceptable levels of toxins in the environment?

This isn't about abolishing the EPA, which does good valuable work. Did you know that the EPA's regulation of CO2 as a "pollutant" is a fairly recent development? A good start would be to reverse that decision, and get the EPA out of the business of regulating CO2. This has nothing to do with "clean" air. CO2 is not a particulate pollutant. The only reason we're regulating it is because of the severe overreaction to flawed alarmist climate models discussed herein.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: husserl on June 13, 2013, 03:31:20 PM
(http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Attribution50-65_med.jpg)

Quote
The percentage contribution to global warming over the past 50-65 years is shown in two categories, human causes (left) and natural causes (right), from various peer-reviewed studies (colors).  The studies used a wide range of independent methods, and provide multiple lines of evidence that humans are by far the dominant cause of recent global warming.  Most studies showed that recent natural contributions have been in the cooling direction, thereby masking part of the human contribution and in some cases causing it to exceed 100% of the total warming.  The two largest human influences are greenhouse gas (GHG) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions, mostly from burning coal, oil, and natural gas (sulfur emissions tend to have a net cooling effect).  The largest natural influences on the global temperature are the 11-year solar cycle, volcanic activity, and the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO).

The studies are Tett et al. 2000 (T00, dark blue), Meehl et al. 2004 (M04, red), Stone et al. 2007 (S07, green), Lean and Rind 2008 (LR08, purple), Huber and Knutti 2011 (HK11, light blue), Gillett et al. 2012 (G12, orange), and Jones et al. 2013 (J13, pink).  The numbers in this summary are best estimates from each study; uncertainty ranges can be found in the original research.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: puniraptor on June 13, 2013, 03:36:27 PM
jesus, emo. the greenhouse effect has nothing to do with insulation. Even global warming deniers accept the greenhouse effect as science. And they also accept CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect)

Never said it did, Nuts Kicked did, and I was in the process of refuting that.  Thanks for playing though.

I'm pretty sure that I did not, but whatever floats your boat I guess.

Was really just a misuse of terminology.  But, part of my larger point was that people aren't generally educated enough to make an informed decision.  All they can do is agree or disagree.  And whichever they do is lacking any sort of substantiated conviction.

okay, because it looked like you thought you just single handedly disproved the greenhouse effect by googling the thermal conductivity of air and co2.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 13, 2013, 03:53:17 PM

Do greenhouse gases not also reflect heat?  If not, would additional heat generated cause more water vapor, which does indeed reflect heat? 

Seems to me, this should have always been about air quality and general health, instead of fear mongering and doom and gloom scenarios.

They do reflect heat, much like glass on a greenhouse. Also, water vapor is a greenhouse gas.
Title: If the models are all wrong
Post by: HeinBallz on June 13, 2013, 04:07:57 PM

Do greenhouse gases not also reflect heat?  If not, would additional heat generated cause more water vapor, which does indeed reflect heat? 

Seems to me, this should have always been about air quality and general health, instead of fear mongering and doom and gloom scenarios.

They do reflect heat, much like glass on a greenhouse. Also, water vapor is a greenhouse gas.
I'm sorry, I haven't been paying attention.  What side are you arguing for?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 13, 2013, 04:08:28 PM
jesus, emo. the greenhouse effect has nothing to do with insulation. Even global warming deniers accept the greenhouse effect as science. And they also accept CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect)

Never said it did, Nuts Kicked did, and I was in the process of refuting that.  Thanks for playing though.

I'm pretty sure that I did not, but whatever floats your boat I guess.

Was really just a misuse of terminology.  But, part of my larger point was that people aren't generally educated enough to make an informed decision.  All they can do is agree or disagree.  And whichever they do is lacking any sort of substantiated conviction.

okay, because it looked like you thought you just single handedly disproved the greenhouse effect by googling the thermal conductivity of air and co2.

No.  Would be awesome though.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 13, 2013, 04:12:21 PM

Do greenhouse gases not also reflect heat?  If not, would additional heat generated cause more water vapor, which does indeed reflect heat? 

Seems to me, this should have always been about air quality and general health, instead of fear mongering and doom and gloom scenarios.

They do reflect heat, much like glass on a greenhouse. Also, water vapor is a greenhouse gas.
I'm sorry, I haven't been paying attention.  What side are you arguing for?

science
Title: If the models are all wrong
Post by: HeinBallz on June 13, 2013, 04:15:48 PM
Whose?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 13, 2013, 04:24:51 PM
Whose?

Those who understand how the greenhouse effect works.
Title: If the models are all wrong
Post by: HeinBallz on June 13, 2013, 04:33:16 PM
The same ones that accurately predicted the doom and gloom scenario's we're currently experiencing?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 13, 2013, 04:38:04 PM
The same ones that accurately predicted the doom and gloom scenario's we're currently experiencing?

Yes, of course.
Title: If the models are all wrong
Post by: HeinBallz on June 13, 2013, 04:53:08 PM
So the ones that grossly over estimated feedback amplifications to the point that it lead everyone in the 80's to believe we'd be at disastrous levels by now. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 13, 2013, 05:05:33 PM
So the ones that grossly over estimated feedback amplifications to the point that it lead everyone in the 80's to believe we'd be at disastrous levels by now.

I really doubt they overestimated the feedback. That would have all been rooted in hard science that really isn't up for debate. They probably mis-estimated the inputs. Modeling is really hard. You need to know the inputs to judge the model. For instance, if the rise in CO2 and water vapor levels in the atmosphere was not as rapid as estimated, that is a potential reason for the model being wrong. There are also things that happen in space, population changes, changes in forested areas, deserts, etc. that are very difficult to account for. So if you really want to see if the scientists were wrong, I would suggest looking at each individual model and seeing what was assumed, then comparing that data to the real world. A good model is always an accurate portrayal of what will happen under a given set of circumstances. Getting those circumstances to actually match what ends up happening in the real world is very hard to do, though. Nobody can do it with any consistency.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: MeatSauce on June 13, 2013, 05:12:18 PM
The concept isn't that hard to understand. Greenhouse gases trap heat. The quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increasing. Therefore, the earth is going to get hotter. LOL at going out with thermometers and tracking global temperature to try to prove anything. That's the global weather, not climate.

You don't know what you're talking about quite yet but you're headed in the right direction.

Feel free to elaborate.

Well the thermal conductivity of CO2 is 0.105 (W/m*K).  Air is 0.0243 (both at 0 deg C).  So it appears air is a better insulator than carbon dioxide.  How in the world is air with an increased concentration of CO2 trapping heat?

The "lifetime in the atmosphere" of CO2 is much higher than O2, for example.  Basically, based on the oxygen and carbon cycles, oxygen is cycled through more quickly and develops offsets that have a net loss in heat, whereas CO2 has a slower cycle and develops a net gain in heat.

We're focused on the trapping of the heat first.  Then we'll get into your chemistry voo doo.  I bid you good day, sir!
Well, then lets focus on the correct thermal principal.  Convection.  conduction isn't that big of a player except from the surface to less than an inch above the ground.  But on to the CO2 specifically:  It absorbs infrared light in the atmosphere.  The "air" absorbs all non-blue light, thus it contains the infrared complement, that is in turn absorbed by the CO2.  The net radiation of infrared from the earth if ~400 W/m2 and in the upper limites of the atmosphere, it radiatess ~ 250 W/m2, with smoething like 150 W/m2 absorbed in the atmosphere itself.   Now, based on the isotopes of carbon found, the amount of carbon produced into the atmosphere over the past 150 years is approx. 500billion metric tons, enough to increase the atmospheric CO2 concentration by 30%.  280ppm to 390ppm....should be higher, right?  Thanks ocean, for taking the rest.
^^all of this is not debateable.

what is debateable is this:  the increased CO2/greenhouse gases have increased the amount of energy by 2.5 W/m2.  Some released chemicals actually provide a cooling effect ~(0.9) W/m2......and that's where the 1.5 W/m2 that gets tossed around comes from.  This creates a flux of energy available, which cause weird weather, ice cap stuff, and actually some positive(temporary or LT, who knows) and a 0.75 C warmer for each W/m2 that is found.  That's the crux of the argument.  Is that numver accurate? What does an increase mean? I dunno.





Title: If the models are all wrong
Post by: HeinBallz on June 13, 2013, 05:15:42 PM
Hmmm.   So,  if there is indeed a feedback amplification, wouldn't we be seeing the evidence for it?  Stratospheric hotspots & a decrease in outgoing radiation?  This data is and has been collected for at the very least 10 years.  There are no stratospheric hotspots and all of the models predicting outgoing radiation have been completely opposite of reality.  This suggest there is no amplification, thus th models are wrong.  No one in the scientific community is debating whether CO2 is a GHG,  the debate is about how the millions of feedbacks effect predictions. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 13, 2013, 10:18:34 PM
(http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Attribution50-65_med.jpg)

Quote
The percentage contribution to global warming over the past 50-65 years is shown in two categories, human causes (left) and natural causes (right), from various peer-reviewed studies (colors).  The studies used a wide range of independent methods, and provide multiple lines of evidence that humans are by far the dominant cause of recent global warming.  Most studies showed that recent natural contributions have been in the cooling direction, thereby masking part of the human contribution and in some cases causing it to exceed 100% of the total warming.  The two largest human influences are greenhouse gas (GHG) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions, mostly from burning coal, oil, and natural gas (sulfur emissions tend to have a net cooling effect).  The largest natural influences on the global temperature are the 11-year solar cycle, volcanic activity, and the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO).

The studies are Tett et al. 2000 (T00, dark blue), Meehl et al. 2004 (M04, red), Stone et al. 2007 (S07, green), Lean and Rind 2008 (LR08, purple), Huber and Knutti 2011 (HK11, light blue), Gillett et al. 2012 (G12, orange), and Jones et al. 2013 (J13, pink).  The numbers in this summary are best estimates from each study; uncertainty ranges can be found in the original research.

I can't decide if the Skeptical Science website is more like the Onion or the National Inquirer.

Nice work huserl  :thumbs:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: husserl on June 14, 2013, 08:06:19 AM
I'm shocked that you feel that way.  Seems pretty fantastic to me. 
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ (http://www.skepticalscience.com/)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 14, 2013, 08:29:35 AM
You do realize its essentially that Australian quack's blog, right?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: husserl on June 14, 2013, 09:14:10 AM
I realize that it's John Cook's site.  Not sure why he's a quack.   
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 14, 2013, 09:46:50 AM
I realize that it's John Cook's site.  Not sure why he's a quack.   

Have not read the studies, but the results seem dubious at best. For one, man made emissions of CO2 only amount to a tiny fraction of all "greenhouse gases," so it makes little sense that they are between a "100% and 175%" "contributor to global warming." What does that even mean?

Second, if these studies were correct, then you would expect global warming to have increased over the last 15 years as man made CO2 emissions have continued to increase, but they haven't.

So again, we return to the point: the global warming hypotheses (the models) are wrong.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: husserl on June 14, 2013, 10:06:50 AM
Second, if these studies were correct, then you would expect global warming to have increased over the last 15 years as man made CO2 emissions have continued to increase, but they haven't.

If you lol at the krazy idea that ocean temperatures are relevant I can see how you might believe this.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 14, 2013, 10:38:24 AM
Second, if these studies were correct, then you would expect global warming to have increased over the last 15 years as man made CO2 emissions have continued to increase, but they haven't.

If you lol at the krazy idea that ocean temperatures are relevant I can see how you might believe this.

Ok, so never mind the models that predicted skyrocketing temps in the atmosphere. We were just kidding about that. But we're totally confident that the warming is hiding deep in the oceans, or possibly Mars. Got it? Thanks.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on June 14, 2013, 12:17:40 PM
Second, if these studies were correct, then you would expect global warming to have increased over the last 15 years as man made CO2 emissions have continued to increase, but they haven't.

If you lol at the krazy idea that ocean temperatures are relevant I can see how you might believe this.

One of the bloggers that run that site did thank the oceans and other CO2 absorbing inanimate objects for doing such a good job of cleaning up our mess.   :love:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 14, 2013, 03:29:21 PM
And here we go again, more horrendous policy based on flawed global warming theory: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-13/obama-tells-keystone-foes-he-will-unveil-climate-measures.html (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-13/obama-tells-keystone-foes-he-will-unveil-climate-measures.html) Gotta cool down those oceans, stat!
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on June 14, 2013, 03:47:10 PM
And here we go again, more horrendous policy based on flawed global warming theory: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-13/obama-tells-keystone-foes-he-will-unveil-climate-measures.html (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-13/obama-tells-keystone-foes-he-will-unveil-climate-measures.html) Gotta cool down those oceans, stat!

Is this where electric rates "necessarily skyrocket"?  That will be great for electric car sales.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on June 14, 2013, 04:07:13 PM
And here we go again, more horrendous policy based on flawed global warming theory: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-13/obama-tells-keystone-foes-he-will-unveil-climate-measures.html (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-13/obama-tells-keystone-foes-he-will-unveil-climate-measures.html) Gotta cool down those oceans, stat!


The surface temperature of the Earth has increased by 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit in just the past 50 years or so.  How much longer should we wait before we start trying to limit our CO2 output?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 14, 2013, 04:32:07 PM
And here we go again, more horrendous policy based on flawed global warming theory: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-13/obama-tells-keystone-foes-he-will-unveil-climate-measures.html (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-13/obama-tells-keystone-foes-he-will-unveil-climate-measures.html) Gotta cool down those oceans, stat!


The surface temperature of the Earth has increased by 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit in just the past 50 years or so.  How much longer should we wait before we start trying to limit our CO2 output?

You mean the CO2 output that amounts to a fraction 1% of all "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere? I dunno, maybe until we actually have a more reliable indication that man made CO2 actually has an effect of any significance on global warming.
Title: If the models are all wrong
Post by: HeinBallz on June 14, 2013, 04:38:20 PM
And here we go again, more horrendous policy based on flawed global warming theory: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-13/obama-tells-keystone-foes-he-will-unveil-climate-measures.html (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-13/obama-tells-keystone-foes-he-will-unveil-climate-measures.html) Gotta cool down those oceans, stat!


The surface temperature of the Earth has increased by 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit in just the past 50 years or so.  How much longer should we wait before we start trying to limit our CO2 output?

Link?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 14, 2013, 05:11:33 PM
Ol Bill Happer, Nobel Prize winning scientist guy at Princeton says we're in a CO2 deficit state. 

Warmists are very upset, discrediting campaign is intense.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on June 14, 2013, 05:24:25 PM
I took the day off Tuesday to go to the beach and the water was rough ridin' cold. The warming isn't hiding there.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 17, 2013, 09:13:45 AM
I think you guys are jumping to the conclusion that a warming Earth is a bad thing. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 17, 2013, 09:29:47 AM
I think you guys are jumping to the conclusion that a warming Earth is a bad thing.

I'm not, but I prefer to focus just on the junk science that is man made global warming theory.

Extreme heat or cold are both bad things for the human species, but humans have generally prospered during relatively warm periods. The cold... not so much.

(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/ice_sheets.png)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Unruly on June 17, 2013, 09:36:16 AM
I think you guys are jumping to the conclusion that a warming Earth is a bad thing.

I'm not, but I prefer to focus just on the junk science that is man made global warming theory.

Extreme heat or cold are both bad things for the human species, but humans have generally prospered during relatively warm periods. The cold... not so much.

(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/ice_sheets.png)


The world is only 6000 years old though.

This graphic is a hoax.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on June 17, 2013, 09:41:12 AM
As for the oceans, the warm/cooling thing isn't the only issue. 

acidity levels rising. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: mortons toe on June 17, 2013, 11:40:38 AM
acidity levels rising.

maybe we can can make up some of these...
(http://media.whatifoundtoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/cow-fart11.jpg)
but for fish pee pee  :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 17, 2013, 10:23:09 PM
And here we go again, more horrendous policy based on flawed global warming theory: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-13/obama-tells-keystone-foes-he-will-unveil-climate-measures.html (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-13/obama-tells-keystone-foes-he-will-unveil-climate-measures.html) Gotta cool down those oceans, stat!

Is this where electric rates "necessarily skyrocket"?  That will be great for electric car sales.

It's absolutely rough ridin' criminal that thing hasn't been approved yet.  So rough ridin' stupid. The apologists are even out of excuses.

Every day we get reminded how incompetent this sycophant is.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Kat Kid on June 28, 2013, 02:02:52 PM
So scientists overwhelmingly think there is global warming/climate change and politicians overwhelmingly think the opposite.  Pretty interesting stuff.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/26/2202141/the-anti-science-climate-denier-caucus-113th-congress-edition/?mobile=nc (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/26/2202141/the-anti-science-climate-denier-caucus-113th-congress-edition/?mobile=nc)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on June 28, 2013, 02:03:28 PM
also, it's hotter than eff today.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: steve dave on June 28, 2013, 02:05:11 PM
So scientists overwhelmingly think there is global warming/climate change and politicians overwhelmingly think the opposite.  Pretty interesting stuff.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/26/2202141/the-anti-science-climate-denier-caucus-113th-congress-edition/?mobile=nc (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/26/2202141/the-anti-science-climate-denier-caucus-113th-congress-edition/?mobile=nc)

#teamscience
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on June 28, 2013, 03:00:11 PM
So scientists overwhelmingly think there is global warming/climate change and politicians overwhelmingly think the opposite.  Pretty interesting stuff.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/26/2202141/the-anti-science-climate-denier-caucus-113th-congress-edition/?mobile=nc (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/26/2202141/the-anti-science-climate-denier-caucus-113th-congress-edition/?mobile=nc)

There are more than just 2 camps, and the term "denier" is extremely derogatory. Takes away from any argument progressives may have.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 28, 2013, 03:02:20 PM
So scientists overwhelmingly think there is global warming/climate change and politicians overwhelmingly think the opposite.  Pretty interesting stuff.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/26/2202141/the-anti-science-climate-denier-caucus-113th-congress-edition/?mobile=nc (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/26/2202141/the-anti-science-climate-denier-caucus-113th-congress-edition/?mobile=nc)

There are more than just 2 camps, and the term "denier" is extremely derogatory. Takes away from any argument progressives may have.

"You don't agree with us 100% and fall in lock step immediately, YOU'RE A DENIER"!!

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on June 28, 2013, 05:25:53 PM
also, it's hotter than eff today.

It's supposed to get over 130 in death valley this weekend, at least you don't live there.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on June 28, 2013, 05:48:06 PM
Death valley record is 134 about 100 years ago. I'd like to know what they were doing to cause that high temp back then. More people smoking pipes back then? Horse gas?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: p1k3 on June 28, 2013, 06:11:40 PM
Death valley record is 134 about 100 years ago. I'd like to know what they were doing to cause that high temp back then. More people smoking pipes back then? Horse gas?

racism
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 29, 2013, 09:33:29 AM
So scientists overwhelmingly think there is global warming/climate change and politicians overwhelmingly think the opposite.  Pretty interesting stuff.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/26/2202141/the-anti-science-climate-denier-caucus-113th-congress-edition/?mobile=nc (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/26/2202141/the-anti-science-climate-denier-caucus-113th-congress-edition/?mobile=nc)

#teamscience

It's cute when libtards cite websites like thinkprogress or mediamatters in support of their opinions.

Like a soviet citing pravda in support of the position the USSR is winning the cold war, or Colin Powell citing his own NYT editorial when stating the NYT agrees with him.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: WillieWatanabe on July 01, 2013, 07:38:14 AM
Death valley record is 134 about 100 years ago. I'd like to know what they were doing to cause that high temp back then. More people smoking pipes back then? Horse gas?

most likely a faulty reading. I don't think it's broke > 130 since.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on July 01, 2013, 04:11:10 PM
Can anyone think of another instance where so many people just ignored the scientific consensus?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 01, 2013, 04:15:26 PM
Can anyone think of another instance where so many people just ignored the scientific consensus?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on July 01, 2013, 05:03:15 PM
Can anyone think of another instance where so many people just ignored the scientific consensus?

"Scientific Consensus" is an oxymoron, kind of like "Smart Beems." I've pointed this out a number of times, but you just can't seem to get it through your thick skull. Consensus means nothing to science - if the hypothesis is wrong, it's wrong, and the prevailing hypotheses (the models) for the sensitivity of global temperature to man made CO2 emissions are wrong.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on July 01, 2013, 06:12:09 PM
You are delusional if you think there's no such thing as scientific consensus.  The models have been incredibly accurate, with some even underestimating the extent of the increase in surface temperature.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 01, 2013, 07:02:03 PM
Lots of poor weather station siting, old instruments in many weather stations with a warm bias, loss of rural weather stations with bias towards urban heat islands.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 01, 2013, 10:08:28 PM
If we've learned anything from this thread, its that OregonSmock has read the entire Twilight series, twice.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on July 02, 2013, 12:32:07 PM
If we've learned anything from this thread, its that OregonSmock has read the entire Twilight series, twice.


wut 


 :confused:


If anyone believes in fairy tales, it's the anti-science, praise Jesus crew. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 06, 2013, 02:27:08 PM
If we've learned anything from this thread, its that OregonSmock has read the entire Twilight series, twice.


wut 


 :confused:


If anyone believes in fairy tales, it's the anti-science, praise Jesus crew.

Says the anti-science, anti-capitalist, enviro-nazi and his praise Obama crew

Don't worry child, the consensus is that twilight is a great book, for your demographic.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on July 08, 2013, 09:42:28 AM
Quote
World War I brought a global demand for wheat, prompting many to settle unclaimed, marginal lands in the southern prairies. In a region where most counties generally got less than 20 inches of rain, salesmen assured buyers that the chancellor at the University of Kansas had promised the land was undergoing a permanent climate change that would increase precipitation. The act of plowing actually brought the rains, people were told. - See more at: http://agfax.com/2012/11/09/new-1930s-dust-bowl-documentary-how-did-the-catastrophe-happen/#sthash.sFFHZPBd.dpuf

Welp.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on July 08, 2013, 11:12:25 AM
Quote
World War I brought a global demand for wheat, prompting many to settle unclaimed, marginal lands in the southern prairies. In a region where most counties generally got less than 20 inches of rain, salesmen assured buyers that the chancellor at the University of Kansas had promised the land was undergoing a permanent climate change that would increase precipitation. The act of plowing actually brought the rains, people were told. - See more at: http://agfax.com/2012/11/09/new-1930s-dust-bowl-documentary-how-did-the-catastrophe-happen/#sthash.sFFHZPBd.dpuf

Welp.

This was the scientific consensus of the day, so you can't really blame them. They believed dust particles in clouds would bring more rain.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 08, 2013, 08:13:17 PM
I liked it better when the solution to CO2 was "plant a tree" (insert wsc non sequiter),and not "drive all fossil fuels out of business with oppressive taxes while taking the bottom 80% income earners down with them."

I thought I heard the tree lines you see all over the Midwest were a result of planting to prevent future dust bowls, not sure if true.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 09, 2013, 08:43:42 AM
I liked it better when the solution to CO2 was "plant a tree" (insert wsc non sequiter),and not "drive all fossil fuels out of business with oppressive taxes while taking the bottom 80% income earners down with them."

I thought I heard the tree lines you see all over the Midwest were a result of planting to prevent future dust bowls, not sure if true.

I think they are mostly wind blocks. The dust bowls will return when the Ogallala runs dry.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on July 09, 2013, 10:03:57 AM
Tons of trees (windblocks) were planted as part of the New Deal.  Get people to work, prevent dust from blowing.  If/when the Ogallala runs dry I think the chance for a dust bowl returning is diminished because it won't be feasible to farm most of that land.  It'll (hopefully) return to native prairie.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 09, 2013, 10:08:22 AM
Tons of trees (windblocks) were planted as part of the New Deal.  Get people to work, prevent dust from blowing.  If/when the Ogallala runs dry I think the chance for a dust bowl returning is diminished because it won't be feasible to farm most of that land.  It'll (hopefully) return to native prairie.

It would be a whole lot more feasible to dryland farm the plains today than it was in the 1930s.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on July 09, 2013, 10:09:08 AM
Agree.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on July 09, 2013, 10:10:45 AM
Also just did a bunch of reading on the Playa Lakes.  Holy crap, very interesting.  Also, if (big if) we just keep them in good shape the Ogallala is fine.  But we are probably totally mumped anyway.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 09, 2013, 10:15:56 AM
Plant wind farms and allow the taxpayers of that area to eat crap in electricity rates so the people living in an area that should have never been settled can continue living there in perpetuity.

Unintended consequences of the federal govts "investments" galore!  Free land to farm yields settlement. Ethanol green energy causes irrigated corn to grow in a place it can't grow, diminishing the only reliable water source.  Wind to prop it upon the end. Meanwhile, we all pay more for water, food and energy.  Yay federal govt
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 09, 2013, 10:18:03 AM
Plant wind farms and allow the taxpayers of that area to eat crap in electricity rates so the people living in an area that should have never been settled can continue living there in perpetuity.

Unintended consequences of the federal govts "investments" galore!  Free land to farm yields settlement. Ethanol green energy causes irrigated corn to grow in a place it can't grow, diminishing the only reliable water source.  Wind to prop it upon the end. Meanwhile, we all pay more for water, food and energy.  Yay federal govt

Actually, you are paying far less for food due to high plains farming, and what good would this reliable water source be if the land had never been settled in the first place as you suggest?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on July 09, 2013, 10:42:37 AM
Don't forget the federally backed crop insurance programs, FSD.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on July 09, 2013, 11:09:32 AM
If we've learned anything from this thread, its that OregonSmock has read the entire Twilight series, twice.


wut 


 :confused:


If anyone believes in fairy tales, it's the anti-science, praise Jesus crew.

Says the anti-science, anti-capitalist, enviro-nazi and his praise Obama crew

Don't worry child, the consensus is that twilight is a great book, for your demographic.



wut


This is the kind of post a mental midget makes when he can't discuss things reasonably like an adult.  So much pent up anger and aggression from our resident teabagger.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 09, 2013, 11:21:15 AM
Don't forget kids, our own K-State Scientists have concluded that higher C02 Levels mean that plants, particularly food crops are able to fight through the challanges of dry conditions easier. 

Newsflash and pro-tip:  Global Warming, Global Cooling, Climate Change, what have you.   We're still going to have droughts.

Reminder:  Cold almost means certain death for the majority of the population.   Hot . . . much better chance of survival and adaptability.    Earth has been hotter before, and it's been much, much colder before.   Natural Variability . . . now the new chuch of "Climate Change".



Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: EMAWican on July 09, 2013, 11:30:14 AM
Also just did a bunch of reading on the Playa Lakes.  Holy crap, very interesting.  Also, if (big if) we just keep them in good shape the Ogallala is fine.  But we are probably totally mumped anyway.

We're totally mumped in Kansas. 

http://hercules.kgs.ku.edu/geohydro/wizard/wizardregional.cfm

0-bama  :shakesfist:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 09, 2013, 12:51:42 PM
If we've learned anything from this thread, its that OregonSmock has read the entire Twilight series, twice.


wut 


 :confused:


If anyone believes in fairy tales, it's the anti-science, praise Jesus crew.

Says the anti-science, anti-capitalist, enviro-nazi and his praise Obama crew

Don't worry child, the consensus is that twilight is a great book, for your demographic.



wut


This is the kind of post a mental midget makes when he can't discuss things reasonably like an adult.  So much pent up anger and aggression from our resident teabagger.
Since my post was a parody of yours, I think you just called yourself a mental midget.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 09, 2013, 12:54:27 PM
Don't forget the federally backed crop insurance programs, FSD.

Michigancat, please explain how affirmative legislation like farm subsidies qualifies as an "unintended consequence"?  Seems awfully intended to me.

Your Master,
Sugar Dick
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: steve dave on July 09, 2013, 12:55:56 PM
Don't forget the federally backed crop insurance programs, FSD.

Michigancat, please explain how affirmative legislation like farm subsidies qualifies as an "unintended consequence"?  Seems awfully intended to me.

Your Master,
Sugar Dick

not 100% sure you have a strong grasp on what unintended consequence means here
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 09, 2013, 01:01:48 PM
Don't forget the federally backed crop insurance programs, FSD.

Michigancat, please explain how affirmative legislation like farm subsidies qualifies as an "unintended consequence"?  Seems awfully intended to me.

Your Master,
Sugar Dick

not 100% sure you have a strong grasp on what unintended consequence means here

Shut up, libtard.  You are clueless.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 09, 2013, 01:03:31 PM
holy crap :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on July 09, 2013, 01:07:01 PM
Also just did a bunch of reading on the Playa Lakes.  Holy crap, very interesting.  Also, if (big if) we just keep them in good shape the Ogallala is fine.  But we are probably totally mumped anyway.

We're totally mumped in Kansas. 

http://hercules.kgs.ku.edu/geohydro/wizard/wizardregional.cfm

0-bama  :shakesfist:

Can't see it.   :dunno:  Link to well water data?  I pull that up off water.weather.gov.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on July 09, 2013, 01:08:30 PM
Don't forget the federally backed crop insurance programs, FSD.

Michigancat, please explain how affirmative legislation like farm subsidies qualifies as an "unintended consequence"?  Seems awfully intended to me.

Your Master,
Sugar Dick

not 100% sure you have a strong grasp on what unintended consequence means here

Shut up, libtard.  You are clueless.


Looks like the mental midget is getting pissed. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on July 09, 2013, 01:09:14 PM
Plant wind farms and allow the taxpayers of that area to eat crap in electricity rates so the people living in an area that should have never been settled can continue living there in perpetuity.

Unintended consequences of the federal govts "investments" galore!  Free land to farm yields settlement. Ethanol green energy causes irrigated corn to grow in a place it can't grow, diminishing the only reliable water source.  Wind to prop it upon the end. Meanwhile, we all pay more for water, food and energy.  Yay federal govt

Actually, you are paying far less for food due to high plains farming, and what good would this reliable water source be if the land had never been settled in the first place as you suggest?

Doubt it.  If we didn't grow it someone else would (Canada, Russia, China).  There's more potential supply at this point than demand. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on July 09, 2013, 01:13:30 PM
Plant wind farms and allow the taxpayers of that area to eat crap in electricity rates so the people living in an area that should have never been settled can continue living there in perpetuity.

Unintended consequences of the federal govts "investments" galore!  Free land to farm yields settlement. Ethanol green energy causes irrigated corn to grow in a place it can't grow, diminishing the only reliable water source.  Wind to prop it upon the end. Meanwhile, we all pay more for water, food and energy.  Yay federal govt

Actually, you are paying far less for food due to high plains farming, and what good would this reliable water source be if the land had never been settled in the first place as you suggest?

Doubt it.  If we didn't grow it someone else would (Canada, Russia, China).  There's more potential supply at this point than demand.


Are you really implying that importing most of our food supply would somehow be less expensive than supplying it ourselves?


 :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 09, 2013, 01:13:46 PM
Don't forget the federally backed crop insurance programs, FSD.

Michigancat, please explain how affirmative legislation like farm subsidies qualifies as an "unintended consequence"?  Seems awfully intended to me.

Your Master,
Sugar Dick

not 100% sure you have a strong grasp on what unintended consequence means here

Shut up, libtard.  You are clueless.


Looks like the mental midget is getting pissed.

Not sure you remember, but you dubbed yourself the mental midget here.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 09, 2013, 01:15:47 PM
Plant wind farms and allow the taxpayers of that area to eat crap in electricity rates so the people living in an area that should have never been settled can continue living there in perpetuity.

Unintended consequences of the federal govts "investments" galore!  Free land to farm yields settlement. Ethanol green energy causes irrigated corn to grow in a place it can't grow, diminishing the only reliable water source.  Wind to prop it upon the end. Meanwhile, we all pay more for water, food and energy.  Yay federal govt

Actually, you are paying far less for food due to high plains farming, and what good would this reliable water source be if the land had never been settled in the first place as you suggest?

Doubt it.  If we didn't grow it someone else would (Canada, Russia, China).  There's more potential supply at this point than demand.


Are you really implying that importing most of our food supply would somehow be less expensive than supplying it ourselves?


 :lol:

Yeah, name one thing we make here that we also import where the import isn't more expensive.


What a rough ridin' dolt.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 09, 2013, 01:17:32 PM
Plant wind farms and allow the taxpayers of that area to eat crap in electricity rates so the people living in an area that should have never been settled can continue living there in perpetuity.

Unintended consequences of the federal govts "investments" galore!  Free land to farm yields settlement. Ethanol green energy causes irrigated corn to grow in a place it can't grow, diminishing the only reliable water source.  Wind to prop it upon the end. Meanwhile, we all pay more for water, food and energy.  Yay federal govt

Actually, you are paying far less for food due to high plains farming, and what good would this reliable water source be if the land had never been settled in the first place as you suggest?

Doubt it.  If we didn't grow it someone else would (Canada, Russia, China).  There's more potential supply at this point than demand.

They aren't growing it now because we subsidize it to the point that they cannot compete with our prices. Drop the subsidies, and those other countries will start growing grain at the market rate, which is much higher than we are paying right now. We also lose our biggest export as a nation.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on July 09, 2013, 01:21:40 PM
Plant wind farms and allow the taxpayers of that area to eat crap in electricity rates so the people living in an area that should have never been settled can continue living there in perpetuity.

Unintended consequences of the federal govts "investments" galore!  Free land to farm yields settlement. Ethanol green energy causes irrigated corn to grow in a place it can't grow, diminishing the only reliable water source.  Wind to prop it upon the end. Meanwhile, we all pay more for water, food and energy.  Yay federal govt

Actually, you are paying far less for food due to high plains farming, and what good would this reliable water source be if the land had never been settled in the first place as you suggest?

Doubt it.  If we didn't grow it someone else would (Canada, Russia, China).  There's more potential supply at this point than demand.


Are you really implying that importing most of our food supply would somehow be less expensive than supplying it ourselves?


 :lol:

Yeah, name one thing we make here that we also import where the import isn't more expensive.


What a rough ridin' dolt.


The mental midget doesn't understand the difference between agricultural commodities and durable goods. 


 :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 09, 2013, 01:25:50 PM
Ben would benefit from doing a little research before he posts.

 :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on July 09, 2013, 01:29:35 PM
Ben would benefit from doing a little research before he posts.

 :lol:


Says the mental midget who wants to export all of our food supply to countries like Russia and China.


 :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 09, 2013, 01:37:02 PM
Ben would benefit from doing a little research before he posts.

 :lol:


Says the mental midget who wants to export all of our food supply to countries like Russia and China.


 :lol:

To be fair, he wants to stop exporting to them and import food from them at whatever price is profitable for them to grow it (a much higher price than we are paying to grow our own).
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 09, 2013, 01:43:52 PM
To be fair, I said nothing of the sort.  Ben is grasping at straws and looking like a complete Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), which is pretty much his m.o.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on July 09, 2013, 01:44:53 PM
Plant wind farms and allow the taxpayers of that area to eat crap in electricity rates so the people living in an area that should have never been settled can continue living there in perpetuity.

Unintended consequences of the federal govts "investments" galore!  Free land to farm yields settlement. Ethanol green energy causes irrigated corn to grow in a place it can't grow, diminishing the only reliable water source.  Wind to prop it upon the end. Meanwhile, we all pay more for water, food and energy.  Yay federal govt

Actually, you are paying far less for food due to high plains farming, and what good would this reliable water source be if the land had never been settled in the first place as you suggest?

Doubt it.  If we didn't grow it someone else would (Canada, Russia, China).  There's more potential supply at this point than demand.

They aren't growing it now because we subsidize it to the point that they cannot compete with our prices. Drop the subsidies, and those other countries will start growing grain at the market rate, which is much higher than we are paying right now. We also lose our biggest export as a nation.

I agree.  That's why I said if we don't grow it someone else will.

I'm not advocating for stopping farming out there, I'm just debunking some theories on why we shouldn't.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on July 09, 2013, 01:45:44 PM
Ben would benefit from doing a little research before he posts.

 :lol:


Says the mental midget who wants to export all of our food supply to countries like Russia and China.


 :lol:

To be fair, he wants to stop exporting to them and import food from them at whatever price is profitable for them to grow it (a much higher price than we are paying to grow our own).


Right.  China and Russia would essentially own our food supply, because we'd be importing from them and not producing any of our own.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on July 09, 2013, 01:48:59 PM
But not at ridiculously higher prices than we pay today. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: steve dave on July 09, 2013, 01:51:42 PM
this thread did a nose dive off the Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) cliff. and it was already cruising down Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) blvd to begin with.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on July 09, 2013, 01:54:54 PM
But not at ridiculously higher prices than we pay today.


It's basic supply and demand.  There's no way you could decrease the food supply by that much and expect prices to remain stable.  Also, when imports > exports, GDP decreases.  Importing most or all of the food supply is a truly horrible idea.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 09, 2013, 01:55:33 PM
Per Bens billboard on Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) blvd, the entire nations food supply comes from the panhandle of Oklahoma. In other words, a dirt farmer in Oklahoma feeds 300 million people + you!
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 09, 2013, 01:55:59 PM
But not at ridiculously higher prices than we pay today.

If their prices weren't higher, we would be importing from them today.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on July 09, 2013, 01:59:29 PM
But not at ridiculously higher prices than we pay today.


It's basic supply and demand.  There's no way you could decrease the food supply by that much and expect prices to remain stable.  Also, when imports > exports, GDP decreases.  Importing most or all of the food supply is a truly horrible idea.

Listen fuckwad, I'm not saying it's a good idea.  It's just rough ridin' stupid to think that just because we don't make it ourselves it's going to cost more.  There is plenty of land ready to go to make up for what we don't produce.  It's happened a lot the last couple years with the drought.  Bottom line, our Big Macs aren't going to cost $8 if we stop growing wheat in the western third of Kansas.   
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 09, 2013, 02:01:25 PM
But not at ridiculously higher prices than we pay today.


It's basic supply and demand.  There's no way you could decrease the food supply by that much and expect prices to remain stable.  Also, when imports > exports, GDP decreases.  Importing most or all of the food supply is a truly horrible idea.

With all of the subsidies on both sides and import tariffs, I'd say simple supply and demand is a misstatement.  Also, we are already one of the worlds largest importers of wheat.


My point all along is that less wheat was being grown due to a false increase in
 demand for irrigated corn caused by ethanol and resulting in a declining watershed for all crops in that region forever.
But you're too stupid to listen and were derailed by your petty anger and ignorance.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on July 09, 2013, 02:30:54 PM
Don't forget the federally backed crop insurance programs, FSD.

Michigancat, please explain how affirmative legislation like farm subsidies qualifies as an "unintended consequence"?  Seems awfully intended to me.

Your Master,
Sugar Dick

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I was helping you by adding to your list, because for the most part I agree with you on this topic. Although I don't think federal crop insurance was designed as an incentive to grow dryland corn where it has never grown well so the farmer can just collect insurance. Lots of farmers grow crops they really don't expect to produce because of crop insurance.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on July 09, 2013, 02:33:49 PM
Does crop insurance cover much more than the cost of the inputs? 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on July 09, 2013, 02:35:06 PM
Lots of farmers grow crops they really don't expect to produce because of crop insurance.

no they don't.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on July 09, 2013, 02:36:03 PM
Does crop insurance cover much more than the cost of the inputs? 

It covers enough for people to plant dryland corn specifically to collect insurance.

Lots of farmers grow crops they really don't expect to produce because of crop insurance.

no they don't.

Yes they do.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 09, 2013, 02:36:16 PM
Does crop insurance cover much more than the cost of the inputs?

I think it's based on your average yield over the past 5 years. I don't think planting dryland corn and planning on raking in crop insurance dollars is a very good business model.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on July 09, 2013, 02:38:12 PM
Does crop insurance cover much more than the cost of the inputs?

I think it's based on your average yield over the past 5 years. I don't think planting dryland corn and planning on raking in crop insurance dollars is a very good business model.

You are correct.  Also factors in what your neighbors made.  Also you still have to cut it and it pays the difference.  But it doesn't factor in the opportunity cost of planting something that would have made more money.  So yes it's a stupid business model.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on July 09, 2013, 02:41:50 PM
Quote
Some farmers say they plant corn because in the really good year, it’ll have a higher yield peak. Sorry. The data say something else. In the super optimum years, sorghum and corn do equally as well.

One thing I have noticed, though, is with certain farmers, corn is the crop of choice in the really bad years—because it dies so well. They don’t like grain sorghum because it really does have much better drought tolerance. It’ll hang on and hang on and hang on while corn just gives up.

These farmers openly promote corn for dire conditions because it makes their crop insurance plans and returns work so much better. But honestly, guys, I don’t think this is how we want to present our industry to the public. Planned failure really does not look good—especially to a skeptical public who has always struggled to understand farm subsidies and crop insurance subsidies.

http://www.kansasagland.com/index.php?option=com_content&id=4838:plant-corn-or-milo&Itemid=55

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on July 09, 2013, 02:44:55 PM
same guy

http://www.kansasagland.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5010:is-this-crop-insurance-abuse&catid=51:vance-ehmke&Itemid=55
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on July 09, 2013, 02:47:45 PM
Quote
This Websense category is filtered: Web and Email Spam. Sites in this category may pose a security threat to network resources or private information, and are blocked by your organization.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on July 09, 2013, 02:48:42 PM
Quote
Wheat and More….or less

Remember the old saying…you can’t trust a dog to watch your lunch.

 

Well, in driving around the western Kansas neighborhood recently, it seems that’s exactly what we did. We told the dog to watch our lunch…and he ate it.

 

For every rule, there’s someone willing to break it. And among that crowd, there are those smooth talkers who can make it sound like a good business decision. To them, it’s just business. Others are even cheered on because they put one over on the government. Still others consider this a form of innovation. But it’s wrong. And at the end of the day, everybody pays.

 

Over the past several years, I and others have watched a growing trend with concern—and that is to continually push the fence on crop insurance abuse.

 

The big trend here in semi arid western Kansas this past fall was to plant “continuous wheat” immediately after harvesting dryland corn. And in many cases, the corn itself was also a failure. I call this 5-minute fallow but the crop insurance industry calls it continuous wheat because it will be harvested the following year.

 

What happened this past fall was classic. Because of the on-going drought, there was zero topsoil moisture and zero subsoil moisture after the summer row crop. Almost April, much of this wheat that was planted in these disastrous conditions has not even come up.

 

But why would you plant a crop that has almost l00% odds of failure? Because you can make a heck of a lot of money doing it…off crop insurance. Here’s how it works. My insurance agent says with a T yield of 27 bushels per acre, with 85% coverage and a wheat price of $7.15, the farmer’s share of the premium is $45/acre. He can easily put in the wheat crop for less than $20 giving him a total investment of just $65/acre.

 

Now with $165 in coverage and with high odds of failure, the farmer will almost triple his investment—and will certainly net $100/acre. For every quarter of ground, he’ll get an insurance check for $26,000.

 

But wait. The good news doesn’t stop here. We get to combine these very generous insurance loss payments with payments from other government programs like the Supplemental Revenue Assistance Program (SURE) or Congress’s disaster program. In SURE, the farmer gets paid again for the identical losses that had already been covered by crop insurance. Overall, it makes this type of activity incredibly profitable.

 

So who are the winners? The farmers doing it, of course. After they get their hefty checks, they’ll just fallow the ground and plant it to wheat the next fall—just like everybody else was going to do. I’ve even heard some of these farmers joke about using extremely low seeding rates to help ensure poor stands. Then in the spring when they’re “topdressing”, they’ll add a glug or two of Roundup herbicide to make sure the wheat gets sick and that the crop fails.

 

Yet sabotage is rarely needed. KSU researcher Alan Schlegel, Tribune Experiment Station, says this is a very risky rotation and simply getting a stand is very difficult.

 

While this is irritating to me and other farmers, even insurance agents who are selling policies to these farmers are disturbed by it. One said these farmers are clearly taking advantage of the system. “It’s just not right. And it’s bad for the crop insurance industry.”

 

I agree. The crop insurance industry is one of the casualties—not only their actuarial integrity, but their professional integrity.

 

What about the integrity of the farmer. Is this ethical? A quick acid test on ethics is to simply ask: Is anyone being hurt by these actions? Without a doubt.

 

Beyond the crop insurance industry, the US taxpayers clearly got a bloody nose. As we all know, crop insurance is heavily subsidized with normally 65 to 75% of insurance premiums paid for by the Federal government.

 

Who else gets hurt? Neighboring farmers….big time. To cover the losses, everybody’s rates go up and everybody’s coverage goes down. Not only that, this type of activity reflects very badly on farmers in general. The skeptical public really does have reason to wonder if all farmers are crooks.

 

And let’s not overlook the landlords. In many cases, older out-of-state landowners have cash rented their land. But part of their equity in the ground is their crop yield history, yield guarantees and insurance values which these planned-failure farmers consider theirs for the taking. That looks good on your Schedule F—screwed 80 and 90-year old landlords who trusted you.

 

In my mind, there is no question about the ethics of this. But is this legal? Is this a crime? In trying to find an answer to that question, I talked to a lot of people. One of them said when you sign an insurance contract, you agree to use best management practices and to do everything possible to make this a successful crop. That does not include planting wheat under disastrous conditions where the crop has no chance. This is fraud. This farmer cannot look you in the eye and say he intended to plant a crop that would succeed.

 

These farmers may say with the current high price, it justifies the risk of putting in the crop. Who knows, it could start raining and we could get a wonderful crop out of the deal. That’s true and that’s one of the nice things about having farmed for 35 years because I have seen that happen. And it was one year out of 35. Those are pretty good odds—if you’re betting on failure.

 

While we’re on this point, I didn’t say you couldn’t plant the crop. If you want to run the risk, go right ahead. But I sure don’t think the American taxpayer or your neighbor or your landlord has to share in your risk.

 

The whole system is weakened by these excesses. Because of the individuals practicing these high risk and non traditional rotations—especially under extreme conditions where failure is almost guaranteed—regulatory agencies are forced into more and more stringent restrictions on coverage and rates, all of which can have a chilling effect on legitimate farmers wanting to adopt new and innovative production practices.

 

All of this leaves us with one question. If USDA and the crop insurance industry continue to allow this, do we all now have to start using these very suspect crop production practices and rotations just so we can remain competitive with the over zealous farmers? That’s not a world I want to be part of.
- See more at: http://www.kansasagland.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5010:is-this-crop-insurance-abuse&catid=51:vance-ehmke&Itemid=55#sthash.LGGf1QNW.dpuf
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on July 09, 2013, 02:51:10 PM
Quote
This Websense category is filtered: Web and Email Spam. Sites in this category may pose a security threat to network resources or private information, and are blocked by your organization.

Websense is a terrible product.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on July 09, 2013, 02:51:32 PM
http://lubbockonline.com/stories/100198/LD0675.shtml
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 09, 2013, 03:00:28 PM
Quote
Some farmers say they plant corn because in the really good year, it’ll have a higher yield peak. Sorry. The data say something else. In the super optimum years, sorghum and corn do equally as well.

One thing I have noticed, though, is with certain farmers, corn is the crop of choice in the really bad years—because it dies so well. They don’t like grain sorghum because it really does have much better drought tolerance. It’ll hang on and hang on and hang on while corn just gives up.

These farmers openly promote corn for dire conditions because it makes their crop insurance plans and returns work so much better. But honestly, guys, I don’t think this is how we want to present our industry to the public. Planned failure really does not look good—especially to a skeptical public who has always struggled to understand farm subsidies and crop insurance subsidies.

http://www.kansasagland.com/index.php?option=com_content&id=4838:plant-corn-or-milo&Itemid=55

Well, yeah, if you are going to have a total loss, corn is probably better insurance-wise than milo because you will get to that total loss faster and have less input costs in the process. It's still going to devastate your 5-year average yield, though. Farmers aren't planting corn with the expectation of collecting the insurance. They are planting corn because on a good year, they will make a lot more money than milo, and on a bad year, the insurance is still there as a safety net.

I don't farm, so I'm sure that some of what I said may not be accurate, but the idea that there are a bunch of farmers out there just planting corn with the expectation of intentionally letting it die so they can collect insurance just doesn't make sense.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: EMAWican on July 09, 2013, 03:07:23 PM
A fraction of a percent of the 2.2 million farmers took advantage of loopholes (that were closed) while the rest planted an extensively researched and modified high-end product with the most demand.  And LOL at milo since its domestic demand has been cut in half the last 35 years.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on July 09, 2013, 03:34:51 PM
Sys would argue here that if you don't put restrictions on the insurance payouts it'd be more efficient and better for everyone, fraud be damned.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on July 09, 2013, 05:02:45 PM
michigan, what you posted (i didn't open your link) is insurance fraud.  that has nothing to do with subsidies, other than obviously it's more profitable if your costs are lower, but you can defraud private insurance just as easily as subsidized.


here's a good paper on crop insurance that i just googled.

http://www4.ncsu.edu/~bkgoodwi/papers/goodwin_final.pdf
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on July 09, 2013, 05:11:27 PM
it's also, like someone else said, a stupid business model.  weather prediction is getting amazingly good, but it's still very poor for over 10 days forward.  one good fall rain and they could have planted a crop and gotten whatever yields the rest of the year's weather would have given them.  the guy is acting like it was a given that they couldn't produce a crop the following year.  that's complete bullshit.  this year's ks wheat was pretty bad, for example, what would you be willing to bet regarding next year's harvest?  i'll take either side of the bet on +/- average yield.
Title: Re: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on July 09, 2013, 05:17:47 PM
michigan, what you posted (i didn't open your link) is insurance fraud.  that has nothing to do with subsidies, other than obviously it's more profitable if your costs are lower, but you can defraud private insurance just as easily as subsidized.


here's a good paper on crop insurance that i just googled.

http://www4.ncsu.edu/~bkgoodwi/papers/goodwin_final.pdf

I don't think it's fraud, but  farmers are definitely taking risks they wouldn't have if the government didn't subsidize their premiums.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 09, 2013, 05:51:48 PM
Don't forget the federally backed crop insurance programs, FSD.

Michigancat, please explain how affirmative legislation like farm subsidies qualifies as an "unintended consequence"?  Seems awfully intended to me.

Your Master,
Sugar Dick

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I was helping you by adding to your list, because for the most part I agree with you on this topic. Although I don't think federal crop insurance was designed as an incentive to grow dryland corn where it has never grown well so the farmer can just collect insurance. Lots of farmers grow crops they really don't expect to produce because of crop insurance.

My rant was about unintended consequences of foolish government policy (recently coined "investment").  Crop insurance is not an unintended consequence of the settlement of a desert for farming crops that don't belong there, on the contrary it is a calculated incentive to encourage responsible farming (eg hedging risk to ensure there is opp capital for the next growwing season) to ensure a more stable food supply, and has its own unintended consequences.

 I'm glad you agree with me, and clearly you should more often, but you added nothing to my point.  All you tried to do was partisan the argument up by injecting what you believe to be a Republican pet project and mute the stupidity of your Democrat party.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on July 09, 2013, 05:53:21 PM
Don't forget the federally backed crop insurance programs, FSD.

Michigancat, please explain how affirmative legislation like farm subsidies qualifies as an "unintended consequence"?  Seems awfully intended to me.

Your Master,
Sugar Dick

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I was helping you by adding to your list, because for the most part I agree with you on this topic. Although I don't think federal crop insurance was designed as an incentive to grow dryland corn where it has never grown well so the farmer can just collect insurance. Lots of farmers grow crops they really don't expect to produce because of crop insurance.

My rant was about unintended consequences of foolish government policy (recently coined "investment").  Crop insurance is not an unintended consequence of the settlement of a desert for farming crops that don't belong there, on the contrary it is a calculated incentive to encourage responsible farming (eg hedging risk to ensure there is opp capital for the next growwing season) to ensure a more stable food supply, and has its own unintended consequences.

 I'm glad you agree with me, and clearly you should more often, but you added nothing to my point.  All you tried to do was partisan the argument up by injecting what you believe to be a Republican pet project and mute the stupidity of your Democrat party.


OK
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: steve dave on July 10, 2013, 09:13:10 AM
re-reading what dax just posted dax realizes that dax could have done a better job with his first person narrative
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 10, 2013, 09:44:33 AM
It's seems that Rusty and SD took some grumpy pills.

sad

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: steve dave on July 10, 2013, 10:22:14 AM
It's seems that Rusty and SD took some grumpy pills.

sad

read my post in a super happy voice. that's how I typed it.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on July 10, 2013, 10:24:47 AM
I have no idea what the eff dax is talking about. :D
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Brock Landers on July 10, 2013, 10:53:20 AM
I think he's just saying the FCIC is a giant clusterfuck.

Also I'm not sure if he was the guy with the grievance or if that was a coworker.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: yoman on July 11, 2013, 09:17:14 AM
I have no idea what the eff dax is talking about. :D

I feel like this is a common theme of this blog. But I love his posts anyway.
Title: Re: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on July 11, 2013, 09:24:03 AM
I have no idea what the eff dax is talking about. :D

I feel like this is a common theme of this blog. But I love his posts anyway.

yes, they're always a treat
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: WillieWatanabe on July 16, 2013, 10:31:34 AM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324425204578599743078256264.html
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on July 16, 2013, 12:23:28 PM
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/07/12/201502003/episode-472-the-one-page-plan-to-fix-global-warming
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: yoman on July 19, 2013, 08:02:20 AM
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/6

June was the 340th consecutive month of above average temperatures  :dunno:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on July 19, 2013, 11:32:46 AM
Check out the blurb at the bottom that doesn't fit the agenda.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global-snow/2013/6 (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global-snow/2013/6)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on July 19, 2013, 12:46:08 PM
Check out the blurb at the bottom that doesn't fit the agenda.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global-snow/2013/6 (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global-snow/2013/6)

there were two paragraphs.  a top one and a bottom one.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 19, 2013, 12:56:44 PM
I know it's crazy for Warmist to comprehend, because for the Warmist all roads lead to AGW/CO2. 

But the earth might just be going through a warming period, but then again, there hasn't been any significant rise in global mean temps for well over a decade (which has the Warmist agenda in a quite a tizzy), and the current actual temp trend is almost a half to a full degree below the Hockey Stick model. 

But considering that we have but a tiny blip of actual real temp (and even that is up for debate based on the ongoing investigations into weather station siting) measurements relative to Earth's history, we should immediately jump to conclusions and impose radical changes, rather than a well thought out gradual and sustained reduction in carbon emissions.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on July 19, 2013, 02:08:19 PM
Check out the blurb at the bottom that doesn't fit the agenda.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global-snow/2013/6 (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global-snow/2013/6)

there were two paragraphs.  a top one and a bottom one.

The 2 sentences about the southern hemisphere ice increasing.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: chum1 on July 19, 2013, 02:14:31 PM
Good news.  I'd take Antarctica over the stupid North Pole all day long.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on July 19, 2013, 06:43:56 PM
The 2 sentences about the southern hemisphere ice increasing.

that was half the article.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 19, 2013, 10:06:55 PM
I saw a movie once that showed what happens when the caps melt, the earth turns on its side :runaway:
Title: If the models are all wrong
Post by: HeinBallz on July 20, 2013, 10:00:33 AM
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/6

June was the 340th consecutive month of above average temperatures  :dunno:

I think everyone agrees that, regardless of human activity, the earth will warm at some rate.  Global warming alarmist and global warming skeptics only disagree on how quickly warming will occur.  So far, alarmist have been wrong.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 22, 2013, 08:13:37 AM
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/6

June was the 340th consecutive month of above average temperatures  :dunno:

I think everyone agrees that, regardless of human activity, the earth will warm at some rate.  Global warming alarmist and global warming skeptics only disagree on how quickly warming will occur.  So far, alarmist have been wrong.

You are dead wrong here. There is nothing that everyone agrees with.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on July 22, 2013, 09:44:33 AM
I saw a movie once that showed what happens when the caps melt, the earth turns on its side :runaway:

Was the Waterworld? I like that movie.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on July 25, 2013, 06:35:23 PM
http://www.treehugger.com/climate-change/there-lake-north-pole.html

I love the shift from denial to natural causes.  Can't wait for the next line of bullshit.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on July 25, 2013, 06:40:57 PM
http://www.treehugger.com/climate-change/there-lake-north-pole.html

I love the shift from denial to natural causes.  Can't wait for the next line of bullshit.

See, I knew the blurb on the noaa sight above would be missed.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 25, 2013, 09:12:35 PM
Wow, hadn't heard the  "the ice caps are a white T-shirt and the ocean is a black T-shirt" and "the ice cap is a sun reflecting force field" analogies.  :lol:  nice find ednksu.

At this point, I think its safe to say these guise are just making thing up as they go along
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on July 25, 2013, 09:49:24 PM
http://www.treehugger.com/climate-change/there-lake-north-pole.html

I love the shift from denial to natural causes.  Can't wait for the next line of bullshit.

See, I knew the blurb on the noaa sight above would be missed.
LULZ only and idiot would see those trends as inverse. 

Also which hemisphere has the majority of industrial production?  What that coriolis effect do?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on July 26, 2013, 12:49:24 AM
http://www.treehugger.com/climate-change/there-lake-north-pole.html

I love the shift from denial to natural causes.  Can't wait for the next line of bullshit.

See, I knew the blurb on the noaa sight above would be missed.
LULZ only and idiot would see those trends as inverse. 

Also which hemisphere has the majority of industrial production?  What that coriolis effect do?

LOL, you're digging deep now.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 26, 2013, 05:50:30 AM
Some who study arctic ice and the significant impact that ocean currents have on them are saying we've passed through a regularly occurring ice minimum cycle and arctic ice extent will be trending back up. 

But never let a good "crisis" go to waste, right?

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: WillieWatanabe on July 26, 2013, 07:04:00 AM
North Pole...375 miles south...same thing.

http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/weathermatrix/did-the-media-just-prove-north-pole-is-not-melting/15739869
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on July 26, 2013, 12:40:11 PM
Who needs climate scientists when you've got bloggers and other deniers out there to do all the "scientific" research?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 26, 2013, 12:54:29 PM
Warmist Dictatorship:  Listen to no one else but us.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on July 26, 2013, 01:06:22 PM
Warmist Dictatorship:  Listen to no one else but us.


Why go to the doctor when you can just hit up your neighborhood blogger?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on July 26, 2013, 01:10:22 PM
I put all my trust in treehugger.com. NOAA can suck it.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on July 26, 2013, 01:17:09 PM
I put all my trust in treehugger.com. NOAA can suck it.


nationalgeographic.com and NASA.com = "treehugger.com" in the eyes of a denier.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on July 26, 2013, 01:26:14 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23409404
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on July 26, 2013, 01:35:41 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23409404



Quote
Professor Rowan Sutton, of Reading University, said computer simulations or models of possible future climate scenarios often show periods of ten years with no warming trend - some even show pauses of 20-25 years.

And Professor Stephen Belcher, head of the Met Office Hadley Centre, said observations and models showed that on average there were - or would be - two pauses in warming every century.

I asked why this had not come up in earlier presentations. No one really had an answer, except to say that this "message" about pauses had not been communicated widely.

So where does this leave us, as greenhouse gases emissions keep rising but the temperature does not?

Dr Peter Stott, of the Met Office, pointed out that 12 of the 14 warmest years have occurred since the year 2000 and says that other indicators - like the decline in Arctic sea ice of 12.9% per decade and losses of snow cover and glaciers - still point to a process of manmade warming.

But what about another possibility - that the calculations are wrong?

What if the climate models - which are the very basis for all discussions of what to do about global warming - exaggerate the sensitivity of the climate to rising carbon dioxide?

Dr Stott conceded that the projections showing the most rapid warming now look less likely, given recent observations, but that others remain largely unchanged.

A Met Office briefing document, released at the briefing, says that, even allowing for the temperatures of the last decade, the most likely warming scenario is only reduced by 10% - so "the warming that we might have expected by 2050 would be delayed by only a few years".

Overall, it concludes, the pause "does not materially alter the risks of substantial warming of the Earth by the end of this century."

In other words, global warming is still on.

But until the pause can be properly explained, many people will take a lot of convincing - especially if the pause lasts longer than expected.


Interesting. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 26, 2013, 01:41:07 PM
Translation:  They really don't know, but they'll keep throwing around words like "consensus" and "deniers" to fit a political agenda.


Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on July 26, 2013, 02:28:28 PM
Translation:  They really don't know, but they'll keep throwing around words like "consensus" and "deniers" to fit a political agenda.


Science has a political agenda, ladies and gentlemen.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 26, 2013, 02:49:09 PM

115 scientists, including a Nobel Laureate (that person is a Democrat) told Obama about a year ago that there is no definitive proof that human emissions are responsible for Global "warming" or "Climate Change", Obama now apparently references those scientists with his broad brush political agenda as "flat earthers".   

So yes Beems, politics has now entered science on the Warmist side.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on July 26, 2013, 03:20:01 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23409404



Quote
Professor Rowan Sutton, of Reading University, said computer simulations or models of possible future climate scenarios often show periods of ten years with no warming trend - some even show pauses of 20-25 years.

And Professor Stephen Belcher, head of the Met Office Hadley Centre, said observations and models showed that on average there were - or would be - two pauses in warming every century.

I asked why this had not come up in earlier presentations. No one really had an answer, except to say that this "message" about pauses had not been communicated widely.

So where does this leave us, as greenhouse gases emissions keep rising but the temperature does not?

Dr Peter Stott, of the Met Office, pointed out that 12 of the 14 warmest years have occurred since the year 2000 and says that other indicators - like the decline in Arctic sea ice of 12.9% per decade and losses of snow cover and glaciers - still point to a process of manmade warming.

But what about another possibility - that the calculations are wrong?

What if the climate models - which are the very basis for all discussions of what to do about global warming - exaggerate the sensitivity of the climate to rising carbon dioxide?

Dr Stott conceded that the projections showing the most rapid warming now look less likely, given recent observations, but that others remain largely unchanged.

A Met Office briefing document, released at the briefing, says that, even allowing for the temperatures of the last decade, the most likely warming scenario is only reduced by 10% - so "the warming that we might have expected by 2050 would be delayed by only a few years".

Overall, it concludes, the pause "does not materially alter the risks of substantial warming of the Earth by the end of this century."

In other words, global warming is still on.

But until the pause can be properly explained, many people will take a lot of convincing - especially if the pause lasts longer than expected.


Interesting.

Mother nature has put global warming on "pause!" Mother nature is "fighting back!" Eywa has heard you Beems! EYWA HAS HEARRRRD YOU!!! :excited:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on July 26, 2013, 03:28:00 PM
Science has a liberal bias, guys.  In Drudge Report we trust.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on July 26, 2013, 03:29:54 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23409404

Is the met office the one where the "scientists" were caught just a few years ago talking about how to best "hide the decline?" I think it was. I'm pretty sure that was it. Right?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on July 26, 2013, 03:54:41 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23409404



Quote
Professor Rowan Sutton, of Reading University, said computer simulations or models of possible future climate scenarios often show periods of ten years with no warming trend - some even show pauses of 20-25 years.

And Professor Stephen Belcher, head of the Met Office Hadley Centre, said observations and models showed that on average there were - or would be - two pauses in warming every century.

I asked why this had not come up in earlier presentations. No one really had an answer, except to say that this "message" about pauses had not been communicated widely.

So where does this leave us, as greenhouse gases emissions keep rising but the temperature does not?

Dr Peter Stott, of the Met Office, pointed out that 12 of the 14 warmest years have occurred since the year 2000 and says that other indicators - like the decline in Arctic sea ice of 12.9% per decade and losses of snow cover and glaciers - still point to a process of manmade warming.

But what about another possibility - that the calculations are wrong?

What if the climate models - which are the very basis for all discussions of what to do about global warming - exaggerate the sensitivity of the climate to rising carbon dioxide?

Dr Stott conceded that the projections showing the most rapid warming now look less likely, given recent observations, but that others remain largely unchanged.

A Met Office briefing document, released at the briefing, says that, even allowing for the temperatures of the last decade, the most likely warming scenario is only reduced by 10% - so "the warming that we might have expected by 2050 would be delayed by only a few years".

Overall, it concludes, the pause "does not materially alter the risks of substantial warming of the Earth by the end of this century."

In other words, global warming is still on.

But until the pause can be properly explained, many people will take a lot of convincing - especially if the pause lasts longer than expected.


Interesting.

More questions than answers.  Maybe they just need more tax dollars for more studies.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: WillieWatanabe on July 26, 2013, 03:57:43 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/K7PSJC4.png)

#TEAM BLOGGERS
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on July 26, 2013, 04:50:51 PM
Incredible scientific research there.  I may seek your expertise on the fundamentals of particle physics as well.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on July 26, 2013, 06:38:24 PM
https://www.facebook.com/NASAClimateChange

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/311642_10151721437673076_87363939_n.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Global_co2_emissions_graph.png)



eff facts when you have rhetoric!!!!
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on July 26, 2013, 07:42:34 PM
that's, like, really suggestive of a tight correlation.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: WillieWatanabe on July 26, 2013, 08:52:18 PM
I'm glad our mid 1900s carbon emissions were pud.  unlike our current ones.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 26, 2013, 09:26:10 PM
that's, like, really suggestive of a tight correlation.

Yeah, NASA and the Japanese Meteorology Dept were doing god's work back in the 1880's
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 26, 2013, 09:27:30 PM
LOL, at anyone that doesn't think this debate is 99% political.  One side wants to raise taxes, the other doesn't.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on July 26, 2013, 11:30:29 PM
LOL, at anyone that doesn't think this debate is 99% political.  One side wants to raise taxes, the other doesn't.
and one side doesn't have to breath exclusively through their mouths

(http://thefrugalgirls.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Breathe-Right-Strips-Free-Sample.jpg)
see if you can fake it brah
Title: If the models are all wrong
Post by: HeinBallz on July 27, 2013, 09:28:49 AM
http://mises.org/daily/5892

Title: If the models are all wrong
Post by: HeinBallz on July 27, 2013, 09:43:13 AM
To expand on political motivation

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3NZuh4_A5kw&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D3NZuh4_A5kw#

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Kat Kid on July 27, 2013, 09:59:13 AM
To expand on political motivation

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3NZuh4_A5kw&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D3NZuh4_A5kw#

http://www.desmogblog.com/who-is-rocket-scientist-david-evans (http://www.desmogblog.com/who-is-rocket-scientist-david-evans)

Quote
According to his own resume, Evans has not published a single peer-reviewed research paper on the subject of climate change. Evans published only a single paper in 1987 in his career and it is unrelated to climate change.

Evans has published an article for the Alabama-based Ludwig von Mises Instutute, a right-wing free-market think tank.

I wish dax would post more theories/facts from reputable sources.  What we do know is that HeinzBallz source is completely unreliable.

More on "rocket scientist" Dr. David Evans:

Quote
In US academic and industry parlance, "rocket scientist" means anyone who has completed a PhD in one of the hard sciences at one of the top US institutions. The term arose for people who *could* do rocket science, not those who literally build rockets.Thus the term "rocket scientist" means someone with a PhD in physics, electrical engineering, or mathematics (or perhaps a couple of other closely related disciplines), from MIT, Stanford, Caltech, and maybe a few other institutions.

I did a PhD in electrical engineering at Stanford in the 1980s. Electrical engineering is your basic high tech degree, because most high technology spawned from electrical information technology. I specialized in signal processing, maths, and statistics.
The definition provided by Evans would appear to be at odds with the conventional use of the term 'rocket scientist' which according to various sources is "One specializing in the science or study of rockets and their design." For example, here's an entry on Answers.com about Hermann Oberth a famous Rocket Scientist who published a book about rocket travel into outer space in 1932 and is considered one of 3 founding fathers of modern rocketry and astronautics.

Evans also claims to be "building a word processor for Windows." DeSmogBlog contacted Microsoft Corp. and they have confirmed that he does not work for Microsoft Corporation.


I would find a more reputable source.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on July 27, 2013, 02:41:02 PM
It's really sad that so many people are willing to completely dismiss the scientific consensus in favor of some right wing blogger who works for Big Oil.  We deserve extinction at this point.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 27, 2013, 03:35:41 PM
It's really sad that so many people are willing to completely dismiss the scientific consensus in favor of some right wing blogger who works for Big Oil.  We deserve extinction at this point.

Exhibit A for the political argument.  What a rough ridin' Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). Please stop breathing, youare suffocating us with your CO2
Title: If the models are all wrong
Post by: HeinBallz on July 27, 2013, 06:25:59 PM
To expand on political motivation

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3NZuh4_A5kw&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D3NZuh4_A5kw#

http://www.desmogblog.com/who-is-rocket-scientist-david-evans (http://www.desmogblog.com/who-is-rocket-scientist-david-evans)

Quote
According to his own resume, Evans has not published a single peer-reviewed research paper on the subject of climate change. Evans published only a single paper in 1987 in his career and it is unrelated to climate change.

Evans has published an article for the Alabama-based Ludwig von Mises Instutute, a right-wing free-market think tank.

I wish dax would post more theories/facts from reputable sources.  What we do know is that HeinzBallz source is completely unreliable.

More on "rocket scientist" Dr. David Evans:

Quote
In US academic and industry parlance, "rocket scientist" means anyone who has completed a PhD in one of the hard sciences at one of the top US institutions. The term arose for people who *could* do rocket science, not those who literally build rockets.Thus the term "rocket scientist" means someone with a PhD in physics, electrical engineering, or mathematics (or perhaps a couple of other closely related disciplines), from MIT, Stanford, Caltech, and maybe a few other institutions.

I did a PhD in electrical engineering at Stanford in the 1980s. Electrical engineering is your basic high tech degree, because most high technology spawned from electrical information technology. I specialized in signal processing, maths, and statistics.
The definition provided by Evans would appear to be at odds with the conventional use of the term 'rocket scientist' which according to various sources is "One specializing in the science or study of rockets and their design." For example, here's an entry on Answers.com about Hermann Oberth a famous Rocket Scientist who published a book about rocket travel into outer space in 1932 and is considered one of 3 founding fathers of modern rocketry and astronautics.

Evans also claims to be "building a word processor for Windows." DeSmogBlog contacted Microsoft Corp. and they have confirmed that he does not work for Microsoft Corporation.


I would find a more reputable source.

:DNR:

Anyone who refers to Ludwig Von Mises as right winged doesn't know what they're talking about. Bet they would also say Ayn Rand was a commie. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Goldbrick on July 27, 2013, 07:02:38 PM
Doesn't matter whether its real or not. There has been no legitimate (read: non-insane) solution or trade-off suggested for what we should do to combat any of it.

And since the 'solutions' typically involve far leftist drivel its pretty easy to see the politics involved isn't solely on the right.

Consensus is also utterly meaningless in science. Scientific history is simply a list of former things that once had 'consensus' until they were found not to be so. Given how deeply complex this issue is, and how incredibly incompetent so many of the leading advocates have been, there is plenty of reason to simply do nothing and wait.

My money says we won't be sorry should we choose to do nothing.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Kat Kid on July 27, 2013, 07:18:06 PM
To expand on political motivation

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3NZuh4_A5kw&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D3NZuh4_A5kw#

http://www.desmogblog.com/who-is-rocket-scientist-david-evans (http://www.desmogblog.com/who-is-rocket-scientist-david-evans)

Quote
According to his own resume, Evans has not published a single peer-reviewed research paper on the subject of climate change. Evans published only a single paper in 1987 in his career and it is unrelated to climate change.

Evans has published an article for the Alabama-based Ludwig von Mises Instutute, a right-wing free-market think tank.

I wish dax would post more theories/facts from reputable sources.  What we do know is that HeinzBallz source is completely unreliable.

More on "rocket scientist" Dr. David Evans:

Quote
In US academic and industry parlance, "rocket scientist" means anyone who has completed a PhD in one of the hard sciences at one of the top US institutions. The term arose for people who *could* do rocket science, not those who literally build rockets.Thus the term "rocket scientist" means someone with a PhD in physics, electrical engineering, or mathematics (or perhaps a couple of other closely related disciplines), from MIT, Stanford, Caltech, and maybe a few other institutions.

I did a PhD in electrical engineering at Stanford in the 1980s. Electrical engineering is your basic high tech degree, because most high technology spawned from electrical information technology. I specialized in signal processing, maths, and statistics.
The definition provided by Evans would appear to be at odds with the conventional use of the term 'rocket scientist' which according to various sources is "One specializing in the science or study of rockets and their design." For example, here's an entry on Answers.com about Hermann Oberth a famous Rocket Scientist who published a book about rocket travel into outer space in 1932 and is considered one of 3 founding fathers of modern rocketry and astronautics.

Evans also claims to be "building a word processor for Windows." DeSmogBlog contacted Microsoft Corp. and they have confirmed that he does not work for Microsoft Corporation.


I would find a more reputable source.

:DNR:

Anyone who refers to Ludwig Von Mises as right winged doesn't know what they're talking about. Bet they would also say Ayn Rand was a commie.

Ludwig Von Mises and Ayn Rand have quite a bit in common.  Which was the bloggers point.   

But feel free to take the word of a self-described "rocket scientist" who is a charlatan.  I mean if you believe what he is saying, I'm not sure how you view that particular individual as anything better than a self-important opportunist.  He has misrepresented himself, he continued to do so after being confronted.  If that is who you offer up as an expert with an important critique then maybe you should find some better evidence.
Title: If the models are all wrong
Post by: HeinBallz on July 27, 2013, 08:31:13 PM

Ludwig Von Mises and Ayn Rand have quite a bit in common.  Which was the bloggers point.   

Mises was an anarcho capitalist; Ayn Rand believed in extremely limited government.    Therefore, if anarcho capitalism is right wing, then the tea party are nothing but a bunch of pinko's. 

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Kat Kid on July 27, 2013, 08:37:38 PM

Ludwig Von Mises and Ayn Rand have quite a bit in common.  Which was the bloggers point.   

Mises was an anarcho capitalist; Ayn Rand believed in extremely limited government.    Therefore, if anarcho capitalism is right wing, then the tea party are nothing but a bunch of pinko's.

You are terrible at logic.  Your first sentence matches what I said your second sentence was a non-sequitor.  I can see why you like reading random self-proclaimed experts.
Title: If the models are all wrong
Post by: HeinBallz on July 27, 2013, 09:07:22 PM

Ludwig Von Mises and Ayn Rand have quite a bit in common.  Which was the bloggers point.   

Mises was an anarcho capitalist; Ayn Rand believed in extremely limited government.    Therefore, if anarcho capitalism is right wing, then the tea party are nothing but a bunch of pinko's.

You are terrible at logic.  Your first sentence matches what I said your second sentence was a non-sequitor.  I can see why you like reading random self-proclaimed experts.

I don't think you know what a non-sequitur is, nor do you know what anarcho capitalism is.  Perhaps you could form some more run on sentences to attack my intellect though.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Kat Kid on July 27, 2013, 09:12:12 PM

Ludwig Von Mises and Ayn Rand have quite a bit in common.  Which was the bloggers point.   

Mises was an anarcho capitalist; Ayn Rand believed in extremely limited government.    Therefore, if anarcho capitalism is right wing, then the tea party are nothing but a bunch of pinko's.

You are terrible at logic.  Your first sentence matches what I said your second sentence was a non-sequitor.  I can see why you like reading random self-proclaimed experts.

I don't think you know what a non-sequitur is, nor do you know what anarcho capitalism is.  Perhaps you could form some more run on sentences to attack my intellect though.

lol
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on July 28, 2013, 12:50:53 AM
Doesn't matter whether its real or not. There has been no legitimate (read: non-insane) solution or trade-off suggested for what we should do to combat any of it.

i posted the solution about a week ago.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: PandaXpanda on July 28, 2013, 02:43:33 AM
yep. Like to read. Not this.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: yoman on July 31, 2013, 10:49:17 AM
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/07/25/newser-north-pole-lake/2586469/

This could be a thing.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on July 31, 2013, 11:01:40 AM
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/07/25/newser-north-pole-lake/2586469/

This could be a thing.

Isn't this the thing that is actually 375 miles south of the north pole because of drifting ice/camera location?  But is being mistakenly reported as the north pole?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 31, 2013, 12:20:27 PM
http://www.jcronline.org/doi/pdf/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1

Our analyses do not indicate acceleration in sea level in U.S. tide gauge records during the 20th century. Instead, for each time period we consider, the records show small decelerations that are consistent with a number of earlier studies of worldwide-gauge records. The decelerations that we obtain are opposite in sign and one to two orders of magnitude less than the+0.07 to+0.28 mm/y2 accelerations that are required toreach sea levels predicted for 2100 by Vermeer and Rahmsdorf (2009), Jevrejeva, Moore, and Grinsted (2010), and Grinsted,
 Moore, and Jevrejeva (2010).
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on July 31, 2013, 01:10:59 PM
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html (http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 31, 2013, 01:32:26 PM
NOAA a politicized gov't agency in every sense of the word is not the be all and end all on the topic.   

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: husserl on July 31, 2013, 01:33:46 PM
http://www.jcronline.org/doi/pdf/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1

Our analyses do not indicate acceleration in sea level in U.S. tide gauge records during the 20th century. Instead, for each time period we consider, the records show small decelerations that are consistent with a number of earlier studies of worldwide-gauge records. The decelerations that we obtain are opposite in sign and one to two orders of magnitude less than the+0.07 to+0.28 mm/y2 accelerations that are required toreach sea levels predicted for 2100 by Vermeer and Rahmsdorf (2009), Jevrejeva, Moore, and Grinsted (2010), and Grinsted,
 Moore, and Jevrejeva (2010).

http://jcronline.org/doi/pdf/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-11-00082.1 (http://jcronline.org/doi/pdf/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-11-00082.1)

A recent article published in the Journal of Coastal Research analysed a number of different sea-level records and
reported that they found no acceleration of sea-level rise. We show that this is due to their focusing on records that are
either too short or only regional in character, and on their specific focus on acceleration since the year 1930, which
represents a unique minimum in the acceleration curve. We find that global sea-level rise is accelerating in a way
strongly correlated with global temperature. This correlation also explains the acceleration minimum for time periods
starting around 1930; it is due to the mid-twentieth-century plateau in global temperature.


Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on July 31, 2013, 01:35:29 PM
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html (http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html)

How does the sea level go way down in the same area where it is trending up? Looks like measuring sea level in fractions of millimeters is a ridiculous exercise. Damn ocean water won't stay still!
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 31, 2013, 01:59:31 PM
http://www.jcronline.org/doi/pdf/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1

Our analyses do not indicate acceleration in sea level in U.S. tide gauge records during the 20th century. Instead, for each time period we consider, the records show small decelerations that are consistent with a number of earlier studies of worldwide-gauge records. The decelerations that we obtain are opposite in sign and one to two orders of magnitude less than the+0.07 to+0.28 mm/y2 accelerations that are required toreach sea levels predicted for 2100 by Vermeer and Rahmsdorf (2009), Jevrejeva, Moore, and Grinsted (2010), and Grinsted,
 Moore, and Jevrejeva (2010).

http://jcronline.org/doi/pdf/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-11-00082.1 (http://jcronline.org/doi/pdf/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-11-00082.1)

A recent article published in the Journal of Coastal Research analysed a number of different sea-level records and
reported that they found no acceleration of sea-level rise. We show that this is due to their focusing on records that are
either too short or only regional in character, and on their specific focus on acceleration since the year 1930, which
represents a unique minimum in the acceleration curve. We find that global sea-level rise is accelerating in a way
strongly correlated with global temperature. This correlation also explains the acceleration minimum for time periods
starting around 1930; it is due to the mid-twentieth-century plateau in global temperature.


If you follow climate research you'll find claims about others research all over the place . . . data sets are too: big, small, local, regonal, global, flawed etc. etc.

What the conclusion really is, it's a really complex topic and so to claim some sort of scientific consensus is, in a word, aburd and frankly anti-scientific.



Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on July 31, 2013, 02:00:49 PM
Hmmmm, I see a trend.

(http://i.imgur.com/65Atps9.png)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on July 31, 2013, 02:03:50 PM
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html (http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html)

How does the sea level go way down in the same area where it is trending up? Looks like measuring sea level in fractions of millimeters is a ridiculous exercise. Damn ocean water won't stay still!

This post made me smile  :D

Damn ocean water!    :lol:
Title: Re: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: 8manpick on July 31, 2013, 11:05:02 PM
Hmmmm, I see a trend.

(http://i.imgur.com/65Atps9.png)
DNR almost all of this thread, but this chart says right on it that the linear trend (up? down? Who knows?) is removed... So what's the point?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on August 01, 2013, 10:41:20 AM
It's the seasonal trend that's removed.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on August 03, 2013, 03:16:06 PM
This abstract of a recent scientific study (http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/03n7mtr482x0r288/) seems a much more plausible explanation of global temperature increase than the short term reasoning of CO2 emissions.

Quote
Are Global Mean Temperatures Significantly Affected by Long-Term Lunar Atmospheric Tides?

Ian R. G. Wilson1
1Liverpool Plains Daytime Astronomy Centre, Curlewis, NSW, Australia

Abstract
Wilson and Sidorenkov find that there are four extended pressure features in the summer (DJF) mean sea-level pressure (MSLP) anomaly maps that are centred between 30 and 50° S and separated from each other by approximately 90° in longitude. In addition, they show that, over the period from 1947 to 1994, these patterns drift westward in longitude at rates that produce circumnavigation times that match the 18.6 year lunar Draconic cycle. These type of pressure anomaly pattern naturally produce large extended regions of abnormal atmospheric pressure that pass over the semi-permanent South Pacific sub-tropical high roughly once every ~ 4.5 years. These moving regions of higher/lower than normal atmospheric pressure increase/decrease the MSLP of the semi-permanent high pressure system, temporarily increasing/reducing the strength of the East-Pacific trade winds. This leads to conditions that preferentially favor the onset of La Niña/El Niño events that last for approximately 30 years. Wilson and Sidorenkov find that the pressure of the moving anomaly pattern changes in such a way as to favor La Niña over El Niño events between 1947 and 1970 and favor El Niño over La Niña events between 1971 and 1994. This is in agreement with the observed evolution of the El Niño/ La Niña events during the latter part of the 20th century. They speculate that the transition of the pattern from a positive to a negative pressure anomaly follows a 31/62/93/186 year lunar tidal cycle that results from the long-term interaction between the Perigee-Syzygy and Draconic lunar tidal cycles. Hence, the IPCC needs to take into consideration the possibility that long term Lunar atmospheric tides could be acting as a trigger to favor either El Niño or La Niña conditions and that these changes in the relative frequency of these two type of events could be responsible for much of the observed changes in the world mean temperature during the 20th century.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on August 03, 2013, 03:34:31 PM
john doug, why can't you just accept that humans are contributing to climate change?  Do you really think that emitting hundreds of millions of tons of CO2 and other greenhouse gases on an annual basis wouldn't effect the Earth?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: p1k3 on August 03, 2013, 03:35:11 PM
blame trees, imo.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on August 03, 2013, 03:35:51 PM
blame trees, imo.


wut
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: p1k3 on August 03, 2013, 03:39:29 PM
blame trees, imo.


wut

sorry i've been drinking. Mods delete thread thx
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on August 03, 2013, 04:42:40 PM
john doug, why can't you just accept that humans are contributing to climate change?  Do you really think that emitting hundreds of millions of tons of CO2 and other greenhouse gases on an annual basis wouldn't effect the Earth?

I don't necessarily discount that CO2 emissions do in some way affect the well being of the atmosphere, I just don't subscribe to the dire warnings of coming disasters, and in turn, the money grab of the federal and state governments. There are much larger variables in play that are conveniently ignored.

If governments around the world were serious about getting us off oil and other fossil fuels, they would put up a prize in the form of a world wide patent and royalties for the first true renewable fuel that is economically feasible to power vehicles and power plants. They would also give tax credits to those companies and individuals for any money spent during proven research and development until the winner is chosen. We just might get a car that runs on salt water.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on August 04, 2013, 01:16:56 AM

If governments around the world were serious about getting us off oil and other fossil fuels, they would put up a prize in the form of a world wide patent and royalties for the first true renewable fuel that is economically feasible to power vehicles and power plants. They would also give tax credits to those companies and individuals for any money spent during proven research and development until the winner is chosen. We just might get a car that runs on salt water.

What part of this statement is not the case currently?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Kat Kid on August 04, 2013, 11:25:41 AM

If governments around the world were serious about getting us off oil and other fossil fuels, they would put up a prize in the form of a world wide patent and royalties for the first true renewable fuel that is economically feasible to power vehicles and power plants. They would also give tax credits to those companies and individuals for any money spent during proven research and development until the winner is chosen. We just might get a car that runs on salt water.

What part of this statement is not the case currently?

Probably going to need that one world government first.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on August 13, 2013, 09:05:33 PM
lulz http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-schiffman/north-carolina-legislature-sea-level-rising_b_1567213.html
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 13, 2013, 09:24:24 PM
lulz http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-schiffman/north-carolina-legislature-sea-level-rising_b_1567213.html

Stop reading the Huff Post you moron
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on August 13, 2013, 09:29:26 PM
lulz http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-schiffman/north-carolina-legislature-sea-level-rising_b_1567213.html

Stop reading the Huff Post you moron
If you have the law on your side, pound the law. 
If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts.
If you have neither on your side pound the table. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 13, 2013, 09:33:54 PM
lulz http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-schiffman/north-carolina-legislature-sea-level-rising_b_1567213.html

Stop reading the Huff Post you moron
If you have the law on your side, pound the law. 
If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts.
If you have neither on your side pound the table.

Interesting if true, bizzaro brad
Title: Re: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: 8manpick on August 14, 2013, 12:18:30 AM
This abstract of a recent scientific study (http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/03n7mtr482x0r288/) seems a much more plausible explanation of global temperature increase than the short term reasoning of CO2 emissions.

Quote
Abstract

Just curious as to what your background is that causes you to believe this is a more plausible explanation? Not saying it is or it isn't.  I'm a pretty scientific minded person, but I don't feel like, nor do I suspect anyone else on this blog is, I am qualified enough to make educated comments on the complicated science at play here. As such, it really intrigues me when people take such strong stands on such issues.

For a while, human induced CO2 looked like a slam dunk as the direct cause of climate change. As science has progressed, some holes, or at least major questions have been exposed. That is how it is supposed to work 99% of the time.

I don't see any reason to suspect the moon tide theory to be any different, and it blows my mind how many people seem to think they are some kind of climate change expert because they took an atmospheric chemistry class once, or read up on some selective summaries of scientific papers online.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 4

Title: Re: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on August 14, 2013, 12:54:16 AM
This abstract of a recent scientific study (http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/03n7mtr482x0r288/) seems a much more plausible explanation of global temperature increase than the short term reasoning of CO2 emissions.

Quote
Abstract

Just curious as to what your background is that causes you to believe this is a more plausible explanation? Not saying it is or it isn't.  I'm a pretty scientific minded person, but I don't feel like, nor do I suspect anyone else on this blog is, I am qualified enough to make educated comments on the complicated science at play here. As such, it really intrigues me when people take such strong stands on such issues.

For a while, human induced CO2 looked like a slam dunk as the direct cause of climate change. As science has progressed, some holes, or at least major questions have been exposed. That is how it is supposed to work 99% of the time.

I don't see any reason to suspect the moon tide theory to be any different, and it blows my mind how many people seem to think they are some kind of climate change expert because they took an atmospheric chemistry class once, or read up on some selective summaries of scientific papers online.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 4

Your right. We'll look back on this time and laugh at ourselves for thinking we were so narcissistic to believe we could control the climate. Hopefully we won't have destroyed the world economy trying to change it.

Sun, moon, and ocean currents run the climate. Everything else just follows along. We are pretty insignificant for now, but if our population growth doesn't slow down, the earth isn't going to sustain us. This is the real issue of this century, not a little solar cycle.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Stupid Fitz on August 14, 2013, 10:25:48 AM
Warmer today than yesterday.   :ohno:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 14, 2013, 11:26:42 AM
A real climate issue is growing larger.   That is the dead zone in the Gulf, caused by nutrient run off.

Land use is a far, far, far bigger issue that "global warming".    Land use has significant impact on climate challanges often pinned solely to AGW by Warmists.   A major problem.

Title: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on August 14, 2013, 11:31:16 AM
A real climate issue is growing larger.   That is the dead zone in the Gulf, caused by nutrient run off.

Land use is a far, far, far bigger issue that "global warming".    Land use has significant impact on climate challanges often pinned solely to AGW by Warmists.   A major problem.

A lot of deniers are in the anti-abortion, be fruitful and multiply crowd.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 14, 2013, 11:36:34 AM
A real climate issue is growing larger.   That is the dead zone in the Gulf, caused by nutrient run off.

Land use is a far, far, far bigger issue that "global warming".    Land use has significant impact on climate challanges often pinned solely to AGW by Warmists.   A major problem.

A lot of deniers are in the anti-abortion, be fruitful and multiply crowd.

Okay
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on August 14, 2013, 11:41:15 AM
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/indepth/2013-08/13/c_132627590.htm (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/indepth/2013-08/13/c_132627590.htm)


Quote
BEIJING, Aug. 13 (Xinhua) -- The sweltering summer of 2013 is going on record as the hottest summer in China since 1961.

According to a Monday microblog post by the National Meteorological Center (NMC), temperatures have reached or exceeded 35 degrees Celsius for an average of 25.3 days in eight provinces and municipalities since July 1, marking the greatest number of hot days recorded during the period since 1961.

Extreme heat has resulted in at least 40 deaths in south China, according to local government reports. Over ten people died from heatstroke in Shanghai during the period.


 :popcorn:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on August 14, 2013, 12:11:20 PM
Since 1961.  :dunno:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on August 14, 2013, 12:24:32 PM
Since 1961.  :dunno:

Makes you wonder what we did to cause the heat in '61.  :runaway:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 14, 2013, 12:34:04 PM
Warmist Logic:  Weather is Not Climate:  Unless it fits our agenda

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on August 14, 2013, 01:06:19 PM
Would a measured, significant increase in global surface temperature since, let's say, the Industrial Revolution, be a sign that perhaps the planet is warming?  A yes or no answer will suffice. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on August 14, 2013, 01:09:42 PM
Would a measured, significant increase in global surface temperature since, let's say, the Industrial Revolution, be a sign that perhaps the planet is warming and that it's civilized man's fault?  A yes or no answer will suffice.

No.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on August 14, 2013, 02:10:33 PM
Would a measured, significant increase in global surface temperature since, let's say, the Industrial Revolution, be a sign that perhaps the planet is warming?  A yes or no answer will suffice.

you would need to post a graph with the values, then I will post another graph that shows how ridiculously minute your graph is when compared with long term values.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 14, 2013, 03:09:30 PM
I know it doesn't fit the warmist agenda, but there's a very large group of scientist who say we're still warming from the last ice age.

Remember, the alarmist scientists (some of whom are still around) said we were most assuredly headed to another ICE AGE back in the 1970's, cover story on many major magazines.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on August 14, 2013, 03:44:13 PM
I know it doesn't fit the warmist agenda, but there's a very large group of scientist who say we're still warming from the last ice age.

Remember, the alarmist scientists (some of whom are still around) said we were most assuredly headed to another ICE AGE back in the 1970's, cover story on many major magazines.

Whew! we averted that tragedy by burning shitloads of coal rather than sprinkling it all over the ice caps.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: husserl on August 14, 2013, 04:01:42 PM
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1 (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on August 14, 2013, 04:22:04 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/QycL1JO.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/pq9NjD9.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/QGGu2Jm.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/bikHSmm.jpg)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 14, 2013, 04:53:42 PM
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1 (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1)

Who said anything about there being a consensus on the subject, but it's absolute fact that some so called "leading" climate (and related) scientists of the time were saying that the earth was headed for another ice age, and could very well be.   

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on August 14, 2013, 05:37:47 PM
(http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/files/2013/06/Facebook_meme_Global_Cooling_11.gif)
Title: If the models are all wrong
Post by: HeinBallz on August 15, 2013, 07:14:28 AM
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/indepth/2013-08/13/c_132627590.htm (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/indepth/2013-08/13/c_132627590.htm)


Quote
BEIJING, Aug. 13 (Xinhua) -- The sweltering summer of 2013 is going on record as the hottest summer in China since 1961.

According to a Monday microblog post by the National Meteorological Center (NMC), temperatures have reached or exceeded 35 degrees Celsius for an average of 25.3 days in eight provinces and municipalities since July 1, marking the greatest number of hot days recorded during the period since 1961.

Extreme heat has resulted in at least 40 deaths in south China, according to local government reports. Over ten people died from heatstroke in Shanghai during the period.


 :popcorn:

Cool anecdote bro, check this one out

Quote
WICHITA. AUGUST 2013 (Heinballz) The summer of 2013 is going on record as the coolest summer in Kansas since a long time ago.

According to several personal accounts of native Ta towners, the summer of 2013 will go down as the mildest summer in recent history, only exceeding 100 degrees less than half a dozen times.

Weather forecaster Tanner Swift remarks: "Don't like the weather in Kansas? Wait five minutes."  LOL Tanner, LOL indeed.

Extreme mildness of temperatures has resulted in countless annoying exchanges of pleasantries by many co-workers; such as: "how about this weather?"  Or "Suppose we're going to have a summer this year?" Or "I'm walking the wrong way, I should be golfing today!" Or the more recent: "feels like football season"

Awesome news!  China should be more like us!  We fixed global warming!

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Jabeez on August 15, 2013, 08:14:22 AM
Ironically, this could be used as a reason we should be worried, right?  If we've changed the climate that much since 1977 and all!  :ohno: :ohno: :ohno:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1 (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1)

Who said anything about there being a consensus on the subject, but it's absolute fact that some so called "leading" climate (and related) scientists of the time were saying that the earth was headed for another ice age, and could very well be.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: husserl on August 15, 2013, 09:18:34 AM
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1 (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1)

Who said anything about there being a consensus on the subject, but it's absolute fact that some so called "leading" climate (and related) scientists of the time were saying that the earth was headed for another ice age, and could very well be.

The lit review I linked to turned up seven cooling papers.  Seven.  7. 
(http://i1349.photobucket.com/albums/p745/husserl1/19de580c-c9e2-49da-a427-5f37591afeac_zpsc3aaad16.jpg)

Remember, the alarmist scientists (some of whom are still around) said we were most assuredly headed to another ICE AGE back in the 1970's, cover story on many major magazines.

To me this reads like you were implying that there was a paradigm shift in the alarmist scientific community, and that agw might just be the latest alarmist fad.  That would be false, but I can understand why you would have posted it. 

Were you just trying to say that there was a minority position that received a disproportionate amount of media attention but was quickly discredited and ignored by the scientific community?  That would be true, but I can't understand why you would have posted it.   

I  mean, maybe someone could draw a parallel between the 70's coolers and today's deniers, but that would be a weird thing for sonofdaxjones to do. 
Title: If the models are all wrong
Post by: HeinBallz on August 15, 2013, 10:31:18 AM
Wondering why methane is never brought up by alarmist.  Wouldn't the world be better if we were all vegan?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Institutional Control on August 15, 2013, 10:38:54 AM
Wondering why methane is never brought up by alarmist.  Wouldn't the world be better if we were all vegan?

This is why people don't take you seriously.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Stupid Fitz on August 15, 2013, 12:14:27 PM
Cooler today than yesterday bros. we are good.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: puniraptor on August 15, 2013, 01:39:06 PM
Wondering why methane is never brought up by alarmist.  Wouldn't the world be better if we were all vegan?

This is why people don't take you seriously.

I've been pumping my chair full of greenhouse gasses ALL DAY
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on August 15, 2013, 02:09:03 PM
Wondering why methane is never brought up by alarmist.  Wouldn't the world be better if we were all vegan?

This is why people don't take you seriously.

I've been pumping my chair full of greenhouse gasses ALL DAY

 :sdeek:
Title: If the models are all wrong
Post by: HeinBallz on August 15, 2013, 06:41:43 PM
Wondering why methane is never brought up by alarmist.  Wouldn't the world be better if we were all vegan?

This is why people don't take you seriously.


Some people take me seriously; sorry you're so closed off that you're incapable of having perspective.

I'm not vegan nor am I advocating for it, but methane is a much larger contributor to greenhouse gasses.  The point I was making, is if your sole concern is for global warming, why are you stuck on CO2?  Wouldn't you be looking for all avenues of reducing greenhouse gases?

Seems like you were just sold a bill o goods and all you're capable of doing is parroting propagandistic bullshit. Kind of hard to take people seriously when they have no critical thinking skills. :dunno:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on August 16, 2013, 02:15:32 PM
Wondering why methane is never brought up by alarmist.  Wouldn't the world be better if we were all vegan?

This is why people don't take you seriously.


Some people take me seriously; sorry you're so closed off that you're incapable of having perspective.

I'm not vegan nor am I advocating for it, but methane is a much larger contributor to greenhouse gasses.  The point I was making, is if your sole concern is for global warming, why are you stuck on CO2?  Wouldn't you be looking for all avenues of reducing greenhouse gases?

Seems like you were just sold a bill o goods and all you're capable of doing is parroting propagandistic bullshit. Kind of hard to take people seriously when they have no critical thinking skills. :dunno:


Methane is terrible.  So are CFC's and HFC's.  We need to reduce all of those harmful pollutants as much as we can.  CO2 is focused on more heavily because it accounts for about 84% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions (related to human activities).  Electric generation, transportation, and various industries contribute the most to U.S. CO2 production.

(http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/ghgemissions/gases-co2.png)
Title: If the models are all wrong
Post by: HeinBallz on August 16, 2013, 08:11:43 PM

Wondering why methane is never brought up by alarmist.  Wouldn't the world be better if we were all vegan?

This is why people don't take you seriously.


Some people take me seriously; sorry you're so closed off that you're incapable of having perspective.

I'm not vegan nor am I advocating for it, but methane is a much larger contributor to greenhouse gasses.  The point I was making, is if your sole concern is for global warming, why are you stuck on CO2?  Wouldn't you be looking for all avenues of reducing greenhouse gases?

Seems like you were just sold a bill o goods and all you're capable of doing is parroting propagandistic bullshit. Kind of hard to take people seriously when they have no critical thinking skills. :dunno:


Methane is terrible.  So are CFC's and HFC's.  We need to reduce all of those harmful pollutants as much as we can.  CO2 is focused on more heavily because it accounts for about 84% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions (related to human activities).  Electric generation, transportation, and various industries contribute the most to U.S. CO2 production.

(http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/ghgemissions/gases-co2.png)

I see I wrote larger contributor; my mistake. Methane is a pretty destructive greenhouse gas and if If you wanted to, you could mention the amount of co2 created as a by-product to support the beef industry.

 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on August 18, 2013, 02:57:10 PM
http://www.wunderground.com/news/climate-change-may-help-redwood-trees-thrive-20130818
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 18, 2013, 04:20:47 PM
Serious questions: is climate change the new vernacular for global warming, or are they desperate things?  Is CO2 allegedly the primary cause of one or both?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on August 18, 2013, 04:34:41 PM
Serious questions: is climate change the new vernacular for global warming?

yes.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on August 24, 2013, 11:47:26 PM
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2495

go east, young man.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on August 26, 2013, 09:30:06 AM
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2495

go east, young man.

It's pretty ridiculous to drive on I-70 west of Denver and see the 'rado just chugging and churning water like crazy, and then to realize that not a drop makes it to the ocean.  Vegas should be imploded or at least relocated to Reno.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: 8manpick on August 26, 2013, 10:00:57 AM
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2495

go east, young man.

It's pretty ridiculous to drive on I-70 west of Denver and see the 'rado just chugging and churning water like crazy, and then to realize that not a drop makes it to the ocean.  Vegas and Phoenix should be imploded or at least relocated to Reno.
Fyp
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on August 28, 2013, 02:19:55 PM
How 'bout this "summer" we're having? Hardly scientific, but here's a fun chart in advance of the latest hysterical report from the UN:

(http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/screenhunter_436-aug-27-08-29.jpg)

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on August 28, 2013, 03:14:37 PM
China has been experiencing record droughts, but yeah, it hasn't been a total heat bomb in the US, so I guess we're good?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on August 28, 2013, 03:23:50 PM
How 'bout this "summer" we're having? Hardly scientific, but here's a fun chart in advance of the latest hysterical report from the UN:

(http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/screenhunter_436-aug-27-08-29.jpg)

I would expect that chart to be more hockey sticky in the last 20 years.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Institutional Control on August 28, 2013, 03:25:41 PM
How 'bout this "summer" we're having? Hardly scientific, but here's a fun chart in advance of the latest hysterical report from the UN:

(http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/screenhunter_436-aug-27-08-29.jpg)

I would expect that chart to be more hockey sticky in the last 20 years.

You're a terrible moderate, jtmhtd.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on August 28, 2013, 03:25:59 PM
China has been experiencing record droughts, but yeah, it hasn't been a total heat bomb in the US, so I guess we're good?

That is the rough ridin' spirit!  :excited:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: slobber on August 28, 2013, 03:45:48 PM
(http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/files/2013/06/Facebook_meme_Global_Cooling_11.gif)
We rough ridin' WAY overdid the 5 things.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on August 28, 2013, 03:58:44 PM
(http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/files/2013/06/Facebook_meme_Global_Cooling_11.gif)
We rough ridin' WAY overdid the 5 things.

 :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on August 28, 2013, 04:01:08 PM
How 'bout this "summer" we're having? Hardly scientific, but here's a fun chart in advance of the latest hysterical report from the UN:

(http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/screenhunter_436-aug-27-08-29.jpg)

I would expect that chart to be more hockey sticky in the last 20 years.

You're a terrible moderate, jtmhtd.

I'm one of those wacko center-wing moderates.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on August 28, 2013, 07:49:19 PM
(http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/screenhunter_436-aug-27-08-29.jpg)

been hot in fresno, tho.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on August 28, 2013, 09:54:40 PM
(http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/screenhunter_436-aug-27-08-29.jpg)

been hot in fresno, tho.

sorry bro, unusually cool in sd county this summer.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on August 28, 2013, 10:04:33 PM
been hot in fresno, tho.

sorry bro, unusually cool in sd county this summer.

 :cry:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: WillieWatanabe on September 03, 2013, 12:12:55 PM
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 04, 2013, 06:23:27 AM
Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on September 04, 2013, 09:18:42 AM
that article is Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 04, 2013, 12:17:21 PM
Warmists . . . The New Denialists

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on September 04, 2013, 01:32:08 PM
Warmists . . . The New Denialists

dax, the article is Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) (or written for an intended audience of retards), if you read the article and didn't pick up on that, then you need to work on reading comprehension.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on September 04, 2013, 01:44:06 PM
i think it's important to be able to retain the ability to detect bullshit, even when it is spewed in support of a thesis you favor.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Dugout DickStone on September 04, 2013, 01:51:08 PM
If I plant a redwood this weekend, will it me big enough to drive my car through by next fall?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 04, 2013, 02:48:03 PM
The Bullshit detector went off a long time ago sys . . . when the warmists/propagandists tried to foist this "consensus" bullshit on the rest of us.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on September 06, 2013, 03:05:04 PM
lib university study:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130904161219.htm
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: EMAWican on September 06, 2013, 03:29:53 PM
lib university study:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130904161219.htm

Quote
"We don't know what the future holds," Barkley said. "The research does not predict climate change, or forecast future weather conditions. Instead, it shows the predicted change in Kansas wheat yields if we were to experience a 1 degree (C) increase (1.8 degrees F) in temperature. If the average temperature does increase, this research helps us to understand the potential impact on wheat production."
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 06, 2013, 03:37:49 PM
Same lib school did a study that said that a higher CO2 content climate allows wheat to survive and produce in dry conditions.




Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on September 06, 2013, 03:59:31 PM
Same lib school did a study that said that a higher CO2 content climate allows wheat to survive and produce in dry conditions.

how well do the people that eat the wheat survive in higher CO2 content climates?   :excited:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on September 06, 2013, 04:14:21 PM
lib university study:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130904161219.htm

Quote
"We don't know what the future holds," Barkley said. "The research does not predict climate change, or forecast future weather conditions. Instead, it shows the predicted change in Kansas wheat yields if we were to experience a 1 degree (C) increase (1.8 degrees F) in temperature. If the average temperature does increase, this research helps us to understand the potential impact on wheat production."


also,

Quote
"Given weather trends in recent years, climate change is expected to increase temperatures, and this is likely to lower wheat yields in Kansas," Barkley said.

:dunno:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: EMAWican on September 06, 2013, 04:30:08 PM
lib university study:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130904161219.htm

Quote
"We don't know what the future holds," Barkley said. "The research does not predict climate change, or forecast future weather conditions. Instead, it shows the predicted change in Kansas wheat yields if we were to experience a 1 degree (C) increase (1.8 degrees F) in temperature. If the average temperature does increase, this research helps us to understand the potential impact on wheat production."


also,

Quote
"Given weather trends in recent years, climate change is expected to increase temperatures, and this is likely to lower wheat yields in Kansas," Barkley said.

:dunno:

Add another wheat researcher/expert to the climate change consensus.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on September 06, 2013, 04:31:26 PM
That makes it 0.11% consensus
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on September 06, 2013, 06:17:59 PM
lib university study:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130904161219.htm

Quote
"We don't know what the future holds," Barkley said. "The research does not predict climate change, or forecast future weather conditions. Instead, it shows the predicted change in Kansas wheat yields if we were to experience a 1 degree (C) increase (1.8 degrees F) in temperature. If the average temperature does increase, this research helps us to understand the potential impact on wheat production."


also,

Quote
"Given weather trends in recent years, climate change is expected to increase temperatures, and this is likely to lower wheat yields in Kansas," Barkley said.

:dunno:

I love this kind of comment regarding climate.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: kim carnes on September 06, 2013, 11:22:40 PM
Same lib school did a study that said that a higher CO2 content climate allows wheat to survive and produce in dry conditions.

how well do the people that eat the wheat survive in higher CO2 content climates?   :excited:

Wgaf
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: gatoveintisiete on September 07, 2013, 12:56:35 AM
How is it that dax is so good and the rest of you are so bad?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on September 09, 2013, 09:21:30 AM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html)

Quote
A chilly Arctic summer has left nearly a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 60 per cent. The rebound from 2012’s record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/sep/09/climate-change-arctic-sea-ice-delusions (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/sep/09/climate-change-arctic-sea-ice-delusions)

Quote
When it comes to climate science reporting, the Mail on Sunday and Telegraph are only reliable in the sense that you can rely on them to usually get the science wrong. This weekend's Arctic sea ice articles from David Rose of the Mail and Hayley Dixon at the Telegraph unfortunately fit that pattern.

Both articles claimed that Arctic sea ice extent grew 60 percent in August 2013 as compared to August 2012. While this factoid is technically true, it's also largely irrelevant. For one thing, the annual Arctic sea ice minimum occurs in September – we're not there yet. And while this year's minimum extent will certainly be higher than last year's, that's not the least bit surprising.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on September 09, 2013, 12:52:29 PM
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/975 (http://climate.nasa.gov/news/975)


Quote
The melting of sea ice in the Arctic is well on its way toward its annual "minimum," that time when the floating ice cap covers less of the Arctic Ocean than at any other period during the year. While the ice will continue to shrink until around mid-September, it is unlikely that this year’s summer low will break a new record. Still, this year’s melt rates are in line with the sustained decline of the Arctic ice cover observed by NASA and other satellites over the last several decades.

“Even if this year ends up being the sixth- or seventh-lowest extent, what matters is that the 10 lowest extents recorded have happened during the last 10 years,” said Walt Meier, a glaciologist with NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. “The long-term trend is strongly downward.”

The icy cover of the Arctic Ocean was measured at 2.25 million square miles (5.83 million square kilometers) on Aug. 21. For comparison, the smallest Arctic sea ice extent on record for this date, recorded in 2012, was 1.67 million square miles (4.34 million square kilometers), and the largest recorded for this date was in 1996, when ice covered 3.16 millions square miles (8.2 million square kilometers) of the Arctic Ocean.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on September 09, 2013, 02:28:56 PM
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/975 (http://climate.nasa.gov/news/975)


Quote
The melting of sea ice in the Arctic is well on its way toward its annual "minimum," that time when the floating ice cap covers less of the Arctic Ocean than at any other period during the year. While the ice will continue to shrink until around mid-September, it is unlikely that this year’s summer low will break a new record. Still, this year’s melt rates are in line with the sustained decline of the Arctic ice cover observed by NASA and other satellites over the last several decades.

“Even if this year ends up being the sixth- or seventh-lowest extent, what matters is that the 10 lowest extents recorded have happened during the last 10 years,” said Walt Meier, a glaciologist with NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. “The long-term trend is strongly downward.”

The icy cover of the Arctic Ocean was measured at 2.25 million square miles (5.83 million square kilometers) on Aug. 21. For comparison, the smallest Arctic sea ice extent on record for this date, recorded in 2012, was 1.67 million square miles (4.34 million square kilometers), and the largest recorded for this date was in 1996, when ice covered 3.16 millions square miles (8.2 million square kilometers) of the Arctic Ocean.

Well, in the last year we have had a huge increase, so we should all assume the next ice age is coming. How are we going to stop it?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on September 09, 2013, 02:53:21 PM
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/975 (http://climate.nasa.gov/news/975)


Quote
The melting of sea ice in the Arctic is well on its way toward its annual "minimum," that time when the floating ice cap covers less of the Arctic Ocean than at any other period during the year. While the ice will continue to shrink until around mid-September, it is unlikely that this year’s summer low will break a new record. Still, this year’s melt rates are in line with the sustained decline of the Arctic ice cover observed by NASA and other satellites over the last several decades.

“Even if this year ends up being the sixth- or seventh-lowest extent, what matters is that the buzz lowest extents recorded have happened during the last buzz years,” said Walt Meier, a glaciologist with NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. “The long-term trend is strongly downward.”

The icy cover of the Arctic Ocean was measured at 2.25 million square miles (buzz.83 million square kilometers) on Aug. 21. For comparison, the smallest Arctic sea ice extent on record for this date, recorded in 2012, was 1.67 million square miles (4.34 million square kilometers), and the largest recorded for this date was in 1996, when ice covered fizz.16 millions square miles (8.2 million square kilometers) of the Arctic Ocean.

Well, in the last year we have had a huge increase, so we should all assume the next ice age is coming. How are we going to stop it?


No. 


Quote
Watching the summertime dynamics of the Arctic ice cap has gained considerable attention in recent years as the size of the minimum extent has been diminishing – rapidly. On Sept.16, 2012, Arctic sea ice reached its smallest extent ever recorded by satellites at 1.32 million square miles (3.41 million square kilometers). That is about half the size of the average extent from 1979 to 2010.

Sea ice extent is a measurement of the area of the Arctic Ocean where ice covers at least 15 percent of the ocean surface. For additional information about the evolution of the sea ice cover, scientists also study the sea ice "area," which discards regions of open water among ice floes and only takes into account the parts of the Arctic Ocean completely covered by ice. On Aug. 21, 2013, the Arctic sea ice area was 1.98 million square miles (5.12 million square kilometers).

This year’s melting season included a fast retreat of the sea ice during the first half of July. But low atmospheric pressures and clouds over the central Arctic kept temperatures up north cooler than average, slowing down the plunge.

With about three weeks of melting left, the summer minimum in 2013 is unlikely to be a record low, said Joey Comiso, senior scientist at Goddard and coordinating lead author of the Cryosphere Observations chapter of the upcoming report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

“But average temperatures in the Arctic fluctuate from one week to another, and the occurrence of a powerful storm in August, as happened in 2012, could cause the current rate of decline to change significantly,” Comiso said.

This year, the Arctic has witnessed a few summer storms, but none of them as intense as the cyclone that took place in August 2012.

“Last year’s storm went across an area of open water and mixed the smaller pieces of ice with the relatively warm water, so it melted very rapidly,” Meier said. “This year, the storms hit in an area of more consolidated ice. The storms this year were more typical summer storms; last year’s was the unusual one.”

The Arctic sea ice cap has significantly thinned over the past decade and is now very vulnerable to melt, Comiso said. The multiyear ice cover, consisting of thicker sea ice that has survived at least two summers, has declined at an even faster rate than younger, thinner ice.

Meier said that a thinner, seasonal ice cover might behave more erratically in the summer than multiyear ice.

“First-year ice has a thickness that is borderline: It can melt or not depending on how warm the summer temperatures are, the prevailing winds, etcetera,” Meier said. “This year’s conditions weren’t super-favorable for losing ice throughout spring and summer; last year they were. Whereas with multiyear ice, it takes unusual warm conditions to melt it, which is what we’ve seen in the most recent years.”


On the opposite side of the planet, Antarctic sea ice, which is in the midst of its yearly growing cycle, is heading toward the largest extent on record, having reached 7.45 million square miles (19.3 million square kilometers) on Aug. 21. In 2012, the extent of Antarctic sea ice for the same date was 7.08 million square miles (18.33 million square kilometers). The phenomenon, which appears counter-intuitive but reflects the differences in environment and climate between the Arctic and Antarctica, is currently the subject of many research studies. Still, the rate at which the Arctic is losing sea ice surpasses the speed at which Antarctic sea ice is expanding.

The sea ice minimum extent analysis produced at Goddard – one of many satellite-based scientific analyses of sea ice cover – is compiled from passive microwave data from NASA's Nimbus-7 satellite, which operated from late October 1978 to August 1987, and the U.S. Department of Defense's Defense Meteorological Satellite Program, which has been used to extend the Nimbus 7 sea ice record onwards from August 1987. The record, which began in November 1978, shows an overall downward trend of 14.1 percent per decade in the size of the minimum summer extent, a decline that accelerated after 2007.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on September 09, 2013, 03:12:37 PM
I thought we were talking short term weather conditions?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: 8manpick on September 09, 2013, 03:25:59 PM
Did you guys feel that rough ridin' warming this weekend? Jesus Christ, sweat city everywhere.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on September 09, 2013, 10:42:55 PM
I've decided that talking about this is actually more boring a speculative than talking about the regular weather.

Like hanging out at the Casey's in some podunk town, only the fat old farmers are libtards and won't drink the regular coffee.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: WillieWatanabe on September 10, 2013, 02:58:00 PM
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2013/09/examining-the-recent-slow-down-in-global-warming/
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on September 10, 2013, 03:38:09 PM
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2013/09/examining-the-recent-slow-down-in-global-warming/

Haha

Quote
Alexander says:   
September 10, 2013 at 9:50 am   

I would like to point out that some of the factors indicated in this article as causes of the warming slowdown–solar activity, decadal cycles, volcanic eruptions, water vapor, etc.– are all potential contributing factors that were completely dismissed, with a sense of derision and mockery, by the “AGW alarmist” community when they were raised by critics of the AGW hypothesis to question the more catastrophic climate change predictions and the idea that all of the climate change was the fault of humans only.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on September 10, 2013, 04:21:07 PM
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2013/09/examining-the-recent-slow-down-in-global-warming/

Straight to the bottom:

Quote
There have been a number of new papers that use recent atmospheric, ocean, and surface temperature observations to argue that climate sensitivity may be lower than previously estimated (e.g. closer to 2 C than 4 C). These studies tend to be rather sensitive to the time period chosen, and a future warm decade could considerably change the picture. As with many things in science, there is still significant uncertainty surrounding climate sensitivity, and different approaches can obtain fairly different results. However, the longer the current slow-down continues, the more questions will arise about whether GCMs are getting either multi-decadal variability or climate sensitivity wrong.

What is clear is that there is still much we don’t understand about the many different factors impacting Earth’s climate system, especially over periods as short as a decade.

Quote
Al Gore: The Science is Settled. Now shut the eff up, raise your taxes, and invest in my green energy companies.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on September 19, 2013, 09:21:31 AM
Let's just assume for a second that industrialized man is causing (or at least contributing in a significant manor) global climate change.  What do we do about it?  What must be done to have a large enough affect to a) stop the trend of change, and b) reverse it to pre-industrialization times?  Will a world effort be required, or is the US/Canada and western Europe enough?  Will products/services from non-conforming countries be charged a steep tariff or embargoed all together? 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on September 19, 2013, 11:17:29 AM
i posted a proposed solution a while back in the thread.  basically some smart economist types modeled that a worldwide carbon tax would solve the problem at little to no cost.

tax neutral, so you cut other taxes by the same amount as you institute the carbon tax.  credits to poor, so not regressive.  not really that difficult of a problem, other than (still!) not having a world govt.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on September 19, 2013, 11:39:46 AM
sys is correct.  A global carbon tax would be the best solution, but it would be incredibly hard to enforce. 

Another viable solution I've recently read about is the "stratoshield."  It's a geo-engineering concept that basically lowers the Earth's surface temperature by emitting sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, essentially mimicking the function of a super volcano.  It would be relatively cheap to install two of these at each pole (probably a few billion dollars or so).  This idea played out naturally in 1991 with eruption of Mount Pinatubo, which sent sulfur dioxide pouring into the stratosphere, and measurably cooled the Earth for around two years (by about 0.5 degrees F).
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 19, 2013, 11:42:33 AM
sys is correct.  A global carbon tax would be the best solution, but it would be incredibly hard to enforce. 

Another viable solution I've recently read about is the "stratoshield."  It's a geo-engineering concept that basically lowers the Earth's surface temperature by emitting sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, essentially mimicking the function of a super volcano.  It would be relatively cheap to install two of these at each pole (probably a few billion dollars or so).  This idea played out naturally in 1991 with eruption of Mount Pinatubo, which sent sulfur dioxide pouring into the stratosphere, and measurably cooled the Earth for around two years (by about 0.5 degrees F).

Shorten growing seasons, that'll be a huge help.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on September 19, 2013, 11:52:11 AM
sys is correct.  A global carbon tax would be the best solution, but it would be incredibly hard to enforce. 

Another viable solution I've recently read about is the "stratoshield."  It's a geo-engineering concept that basically lowers the Earth's surface temperature by emitting sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, essentially mimicking the function of a super volcano.  It would be relatively cheap to install two of these at each pole (probably a few billion dollars or so).  This idea played out naturally in 1991 with eruption of Mount Pinatubo, which sent sulfur dioxide pouring into the stratosphere, and measurably cooled the Earth for around two years (by about 0.5 degrees F).

Shorten growing seasons, that'll be a huge help.


The "stratoshield" concept is obviously only necessary in the case that the Earth's surface temperature continues to increase to unsustainable levels.  Under that scenario, shortened growing seasons will be the least of our concerns.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on September 19, 2013, 11:56:16 AM
i posted a proposed solution a while back in the thread.  basically some smart economist types modeled that a worldwide carbon tax would solve the problem at little to no cost.

tax neutral, so you cut other taxes by the same amount as you institute the carbon tax.  credits to poor, so not regressive.  not really that difficult of a problem, other than (still!) not having a world govt.

Which page?  I'd like to read it.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 19, 2013, 12:03:49 PM
sys is correct.  A global carbon tax would be the best solution, but it would be incredibly hard to enforce. 

Another viable solution I've recently read about is the "stratoshield."  It's a geo-engineering concept that basically lowers the Earth's surface temperature by emitting sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, essentially mimicking the function of a super volcano.  It would be relatively cheap to install two of these at each pole (probably a few billion dollars or so).  This idea played out naturally in 1991 with eruption of Mount Pinatubo, which sent sulfur dioxide pouring into the stratosphere, and measurably cooled the Earth for around two years (by about 0.5 degrees F).

Shorten growing seasons, that'll be a huge help.


The "stratoshield" concept is obviously only necessary in the case that the Earth's surface temperature continues to increase to unsustainable levels.  Under that scenario, shortened growing seasons will be the least of our concerns.

But too much cooling will trump too much warming nearly every time.  Cool/Cold is almost certain death.   
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on September 19, 2013, 12:09:34 PM
sys is correct.  A global carbon tax would be the best solution, but it would be incredibly hard to enforce. 

Another viable solution I've recently read about is the "stratoshield."  It's a geo-engineering concept that basically lowers the Earth's surface temperature by emitting sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, essentially mimicking the function of a super volcano.  It would be relatively cheap to install two of these at each pole (probably a few billion dollars or so).  This idea played out naturally in 1991 with eruption of Mount Pinatubo, which sent sulfur dioxide pouring into the stratosphere, and measurably cooled the Earth for around two years (by about 0.5 degrees F).

Shorten growing seasons, that'll be a huge help.


The "stratoshield" concept is obviously only necessary in the case that the Earth's surface temperature continues to increase to unsustainable levels.  Under that scenario, shortened growing seasons will be the least of our concerns.

But too much cooling will trump too much warming nearly every time.  Cool/Cold is almost certain death.


No crap, Sherlock.  That's why this "stratoshield" device is essentially a long, thin pipe that stretches up to the stratosphere and can be turned on/off. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 19, 2013, 12:23:28 PM
sys is correct.  A global carbon tax would be the best solution, but it would be incredibly hard to enforce. 

Another viable solution I've recently read about is the "stratoshield."  It's a geo-engineering concept that basically lowers the Earth's surface temperature by emitting sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, essentially mimicking the function of a super volcano.  It would be relatively cheap to install two of these at each pole (probably a few billion dollars or so).  This idea played out naturally in 1991 with eruption of Mount Pinatubo, which sent sulfur dioxide pouring into the stratosphere, and measurably cooled the Earth for around two years (by about 0.5 degrees F).

Shorten growing seasons, that'll be a huge help.


The "stratoshield" concept is obviously only necessary in the case that the Earth's surface temperature continues to increase to unsustainable levels.  Under that scenario, shortened growing seasons will be the least of our concerns.

But too much cooling will trump too much warming nearly every time.  Cool/Cold is almost certain death.


No crap, Sherlock.  That's why this "stratoshield" device is essentially a long, thin pipe that stretches up to the stratosphere and can be turned on/off.

Don't cancel your subscription to Popular Science

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on September 19, 2013, 12:39:23 PM
Which page?  I'd like to read it.

it was a planet money podcast.  easier to link it again than find my post.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/07/12/201502003/episode-472-the-one-page-plan-to-fix-global-warming
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on September 19, 2013, 09:03:28 PM
sys is correct.  A global carbon tax would be the best solution, but it would be incredibly hard to enforce. 

Another viable solution I've recently read about is the "stratoshield."  It's a geo-engineering concept that basically lowers the Earth's surface temperature by emitting sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, essentially mimicking the function of a super volcano.  It would be relatively cheap to install two of these at each pole (probably a few billion dollars or so).  This idea played out naturally in 1991 with eruption of Mount Pinatubo, which sent sulfur dioxide pouring into the stratosphere, and measurably cooled the Earth for around two years (by about 0.5 degrees F).

:lol:  I think plan B is earth shaped ray bans

So stupid
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Stupid Fitz on September 20, 2013, 12:27:32 PM
sys is correct.  A global carbon tax would be the best solution, but it would be incredibly hard to enforce. 

Another viable solution I've recently read about is the "stratoshield."  It's a geo-engineering concept that basically lowers the Earth's surface temperature by emitting sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, essentially mimicking the function of a super volcano.  It would be relatively cheap to install two of these at each pole (probably a few billion dollars or so).  This idea played out naturally in 1991 with eruption of Mount Pinatubo, which sent sulfur dioxide pouring into the stratosphere, and measurably cooled the Earth for around two years (by about 0.5 degrees F).

Yes this seems perfect.  A bunch of dudes building a tube that will put sulfur dioxide in the air at each pole.  What could possibly go wrong with this.  I really don't want to live forever (maybe I do :dunno: , but I would love to be able to look back from the future and see what a bunch of dumbasses we all were.

Pretty chilly today for this time of year btw. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on September 20, 2013, 02:38:35 PM
I would love to be able to look back from the future and see what a bunch of dumbasses we all all were.

Please don't lump me or other conservatives in with the klimate krazies. Anyway, you don't have to wait for the future. You can laugh at them right now.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on September 20, 2013, 06:42:15 PM
sys is correct.  A global carbon tax would be the best solution, but it would be incredibly hard to enforce. 

Another viable solution I've recently read about is the "stratoshield."  It's a geo-engineering concept that basically lowers the Earth's surface temperature by emitting sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, essentially mimicking the function of a super volcano.  It would be relatively cheap to install two of these at each pole (probably a few billion dollars or so).  This idea played out naturally in 1991 with eruption of Mount Pinatubo, which sent sulfur dioxide pouring into the stratosphere, and measurably cooled the Earth for around two years (by about 0.5 degrees F).

Yes this seems perfect.  A bunch of dudes building a tube that will put sulfur dioxide in the air at each pole.  What could possibly go wrong with this.  I really don't want to live forever (maybe I do :dunno: , but I would love to be able to look back from the future and see what a bunch of dumbasses we all were.

Pretty chilly today for this time of year btw.

All you need to do is go back to the 70's and the coolers fear mongering. They were planning on covering the polar ice caps with coal dust to heat things up. The same morons are still at work.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on September 22, 2013, 02:35:51 AM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323665504579032934293143524.html?mod=WSJ__MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsForth
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on September 24, 2013, 12:11:01 PM
I love how I get attacked by the crazy nut jobs for simply mentioning an alternative solution to climate change.  These morons are completely averse to anything that comes from outside of their little right wing bubble.  So sad.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on September 24, 2013, 12:46:42 PM
sys is correct.  A global carbon tax would be the best solution, but it would be incredibly hard to enforce. 

Another viable solution I've recently read about is the "stratoshield."  It's a geo-engineering concept that basically lowers the Earth's surface temperature by emitting sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, essentially mimicking the function of a super volcano.  It would be relatively cheap to install two of these at each pole (probably a few billion dollars or so).  This idea played out naturally in 1991 with eruption of Mount Pinatubo, which sent sulfur dioxide pouring into the stratosphere, and measurably cooled the Earth for around two years (by about 0.5 degrees F).

Yes this seems perfect.  A bunch of dudes building a tube that will put sulfur dioxide in the air at each pole.  What could possibly go wrong with this.  I really don't want to live forever (maybe I do :dunno: , but I would love to be able to look back from the future and see what a bunch of dumbasses we all were.

Pretty chilly today for this time of year btw.

All you need to do is go back to the 70's and the coolers fear mongering. They were planning on covering the polar ice caps with coal dust to heat things up. The same morons are still at work.


There are extremists on both sides of the debate.  The Earth was cooling back in the 70's and a lot of it had to do with CFCs and aerosols that were polluting the atmosphere.  The Montreal Protocol eliminated the use of CFCs for the most part and here we are today with a warmer climate. 

The extremists on the denial side of the debate don't believe that humans have any sort of affect on our environment, and a significant portion of those people believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old.  That's why this debate is going nowhere and the special interest groups on the denier side have so much more leverage than they really should.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on September 24, 2013, 01:47:50 PM
sys is correct.  A global carbon tax would be the best solution, but it would be incredibly hard to enforce. 

Another viable solution I've recently read about is the "stratoshield."  It's a geo-engineering concept that basically lowers the Earth's surface temperature by emitting sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, essentially mimicking the function of a super volcano.  It would be relatively cheap to install two of these at each pole (probably a few billion dollars or so).  This idea played out naturally in 1991 with eruption of Mount Pinatubo, which sent sulfur dioxide pouring into the stratosphere, and measurably cooled the Earth for around two years (by about 0.5 degrees F).

Yes this seems perfect.  A bunch of dudes building a tube that will put sulfur dioxide in the air at each pole.  What could possibly go wrong with this.  I really don't want to live forever (maybe I do :dunno: , but I would love to be able to look back from the future and see what a bunch of dumbasses we all were.

Pretty chilly today for this time of year btw.

All you need to do is go back to the 70's and the coolers fear mongering. They were planning on covering the polar ice caps with coal dust to heat things up. The same morons are still at work.


There are extremists on both sides of the debate.  The Earth was cooling back in the 70's and a lot of it had to do with CFCs and aerosols that were polluting the atmosphere.  The Montreal Protocol eliminated the use of CFCs for the most part and here we are today with a warmer climate. 

The extremists on the denial side of the debate don't believe that humans have any sort of affect on our environment, and a significant portion of those people believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old.  That's why this debate is going nowhere and the special interest groups on the denier side have so much more leverage than they really should.

sounds like we need to put CFCs back in aerosols.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on September 24, 2013, 01:50:10 PM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323665504579032934293143524.html?mod=WSJ__MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsForth

This was a really good article, sys.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on September 24, 2013, 01:53:29 PM
sys is correct.  A global carbon tax would be the best solution, but it would be incredibly hard to enforce. 

Another viable solution I've recently read about is the "stratoshield."  It's a geo-engineering concept that basically lowers the Earth's surface temperature by emitting sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, essentially mimicking the function of a super volcano.  It would be relatively cheap to install two of these at each pole (probably a few billion dollars or so).  This idea played out naturally in 1991 with eruption of Mount Pinatubo, which sent sulfur dioxide pouring into the stratosphere, and measurably cooled the Earth for around two years (by about 0.5 degrees F).

Yes this seems perfect.  A bunch of dudes building a tube that will put sulfur dioxide in the air at each pole.  What could possibly go wrong with this.  I really don't want to live forever (maybe I do :dunno: , but I would love to be able to look back from the future and see what a bunch of dumbasses we all were.

Pretty chilly today for this time of year btw.

All you need to do is go back to the 70's and the coolers fear mongering. They were planning on covering the polar ice caps with coal dust to heat things up. The same morons are still at work.


There are extremists on both sides of the debate.  The Earth was cooling back in the 70's and a lot of it had to do with CFCs and aerosols that were polluting the atmosphere.  The Montreal Protocol eliminated the use of CFCs for the most part and here we are today with a warmer climate. 

The extremists on the denial side of the debate don't believe that humans have any sort of affect on our environment, and a significant portion of those people believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old.  That's why this debate is going nowhere and the special interest groups on the denier side have so much more leverage than they really should.

sounds like we need to put CFCs back in aerosols.


They are mainly HCFCs now, and they're found mostly in refrigerants.  The biggest problem is that they do a ton of damage to the ozone layer, not that they cool the Earth necessarily.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on September 24, 2013, 02:57:47 PM
This was a really good article, sys.

grantham is a really smart man.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 24, 2013, 03:16:46 PM
Golly, which elite goEMAW poster has been talking about the control of the resource rich Central Asian (and it's periphery which would include North Africa) region of the world, and trying to explain to you folks that the U.S.'s 'rent-a-mob' aka Al Quada is really just excuse for the United States to exert hegemony, topple regimes, destabilize regions, (which when needed lessons state control over natural resources) and bolster other regimes (despite their horrible human rights track records).   

While Morocco has been off my personal radar, it's time to start doing some research to find out if the Constitutional Monoarchy of Morocco will stand the test of time in the, dare I say, new world order.   Or will they get Libya'd, Syria'd, Balkanized or Iraq'd??

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on September 24, 2013, 03:42:18 PM
This was a really good article, sys.

grantham is a really smart man.


Yes he is.  Thanks for sharing.  This part pretty much echoes what I've been saying on this board for years now:

 
Quote
Q: Why is this problem so hard for us to deal with? You've railed against short-termism.

A: A career politician has a very short horizon. They're not really interested in problems that go out five or 10 years. Secondly, you have what they call the discount-rate effect, which is a dollar in 10 years has a much lower value to a corporation than a dollar today. So they're only interested, at the corporate level, in the short term. And politicians, in the very short term. And you have a vested-interest effect. In other words, it's very hard to get change when the people who are benefitting very nicely, thank you, from the current situation don't want it. If the oil industry is making a bundle, which they are, they don't want to change to a system that recognizes climate change and the need to have a tax on carbon. And they can fund right-wing think tanks, and they do.

So you have vested interests fighting like mad to keep the situation the way it is. And that's always the case. So change is difficult, and with our politicians with the short-term election problems, it's nearly impossible. And when they depend so much on campaign contributions, and they find the campaign contributions come so much from the vested interests, the financial world, but more particularly the energy world, it's a bloody miracle anything gets done.


Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Stupid Fitz on September 25, 2013, 03:22:00 PM
sys is correct.  A global carbon tax would be the best solution, but it would be incredibly hard to enforce. 

Another viable solution I've recently read about is the "stratoshield."  It's a geo-engineering concept that basically lowers the Earth's surface temperature by emitting sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, essentially mimicking the function of a super volcano.  It would be relatively cheap to install two of these at each pole (probably a few billion dollars or so).  This idea played out naturally in 1991 with eruption of Mount Pinatubo, which sent sulfur dioxide pouring into the stratosphere, and measurably cooled the Earth for around two years (by about 0.5 degrees F).

Yes this seems perfect.  A bunch of dudes building a tube that will put sulfur dioxide in the air at each pole.  What could possibly go wrong with this.  I really don't want to live forever (maybe I do :dunno: , but I would love to be able to look back from the future and see what a bunch of dumbasses we all were.

Pretty chilly today for this time of year btw.

All you need to do is go back to the 70's and the coolers fear mongering. They were planning on covering the polar ice caps with coal dust to heat things up. The same morons are still at work.


There are extremists on both sides of the debate.  The Earth was cooling back in the 70's and a lot of it had to do with CFCs and aerosols that were polluting the atmosphere.  The Montreal Protocol eliminated the use of CFCs for the most part and here we are today with a warmer climate. 

The extremists on the denial side of the debate don't believe that humans have any sort of affect on our environment, and a significant portion of those people believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old.  That's why this debate is going nowhere and the special interest groups on the denier side have so much more leverage than they really should.

sounds like we need to put CFCs back in aerosols.


They are mainly HCFCs now, and they're found mostly in refrigerants.  The biggest problem is that they do a ton of damage to the ozone layer, not that they cool the Earth necessarily.

Oooh, the ozone layer. Remember back in the 80's when we were creating a giant hole in it and were all going to fry if we didn't hurry up and do something about it?  I stopped using hairspray to help, pretty sure that fixed the problem. Your welcome.

Pretty normal temps today, looks like we are good.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on September 25, 2013, 03:45:17 PM
I thought it was mostly just the Australians who were going to fry.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on September 25, 2013, 09:12:45 PM
Speaking of phony environmental catastrophes, I wonder how many people have died of malaria because of the DDT ban? But the science was settled....
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on September 25, 2013, 10:55:01 PM
Speaking of phony environmental catastrophes, I wonder how many people have died of malaria because of the DDT ban? But the science was settled....

speaking of Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) talking points with no basis in reality...
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on September 25, 2013, 11:01:27 PM
are humans responsible for ocean acidification? i'm not sure if humans are able to affect the enviro on that scale or not. anyone?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on September 26, 2013, 09:05:04 AM
I like how the guy who thinks we should be building a smoke stack on the north and south pole to stop global climate warming change is calling people crazy and delusional.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Stupid Fitz on September 26, 2013, 08:39:08 PM
I like how the guy who thinks we should be building a smoke stack on the north and south pole to stop global climate warming change is calling people crazy and delusional.

I think we should build the giant stacks AND black stuff all over the glaciers.  That should make everyone happy. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on September 27, 2013, 12:07:03 PM
Gotta love how the whackos attack me for simply mentioning an alternative solution to climate change.  A cost effective solution that wouldn't totally crush the economy.  The idea comes from a think tank in Seattle that includes some of the smartest humans on the planet, many of whom helped develop Microsoft.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: kim carnes on September 27, 2013, 02:47:38 PM
Microsoft is a hot pile of garbage
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Stupid Fitz on September 27, 2013, 03:50:15 PM
Gotta love how the whackos attack me for simply mentioning an alternative solution to climate change.  A cost effective solution that wouldn't totally crush the economy.  The idea comes from a think tank in Seattle that includes some of the smartest humans on the planet, many of whom helped develop Microsoft.

I am 100% behind your Lego towers Beems.  Let's cool this bitch down.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on September 28, 2013, 08:48:43 AM
 :lol:

Oh, beams.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on September 30, 2013, 08:36:40 AM
HEADLINE: Top MIT Climate Scientist Concurs With Post On goEMAW.com (http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/29/top-mit-scientist-un-climate-report-is-hilariously-flawed/)

Quote
Not all scientists are panicking about global warming — one of them finds the alarmism “hilarious.”

A top climate scientist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology lambasted a new report by the UN’s climate bureaucracy that blamed mankind as the main cause of global warming and whitewashed the fact that there has been a hiatus in warming for the last 15 years.

“I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence,” Dr. Richard Lindzen told Climate Depot, a global warming skeptic news site. “They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase.”

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claimed it was 95 percent sure that global warming was mainly driven by human burning of fossil fuels that produce greenhouse gases. The I.P.C.C. also glossed over the fact that the Earth has not warmed in the past 15 years, arguing that the heat was absorbed by the ocean.

“Their excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean,” Lindzen added. “However, this is simply an admission that the models fail to simulate the exchanges of heat between the surface layers and the deeper oceans.”

“However, it is this heat transport that plays a major role in natural internal variability of climate, and the IPCC assertions that observed warming can be attributed to man depend crucially on their assertion that these models accurately simulate natural internal variability,” Lindzen continued. “Thus, they now, somewhat obscurely, admit that their crucial assumption was totally unjustified.”
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on September 30, 2013, 08:44:49 AM
http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/23/u-s-and-europe-tried-to-cover-up-data-showing-lack-of-global-warming/ (http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/23/u-s-and-europe-tried-to-cover-up-data-showing-lack-of-global-warming/)

Quote
Leaked documents obtained by the Associated Press show that the U.S. government and several European governments tried to get climate scientists to downplay the lack of global warming over the past 15 years.

The highly anticipated United Nations report on global warming is expected to affirm the link between human activity and global warming, but scientists are still having trouble explaining away the lull in rising global temperatures over the past 15 years despite rapidly rising greenhouse gas levels.

The lull in global warming has been noted by skeptics to show the flaws behind the science and the theory that human activities, primarily through burning fossil fuels, causes global temperatures to rise.

This has some governments worried, reports the AP, as documents show that the U.S. government along with some European nations tried to convince the report’s authors to downplay the lack of warming over the past 15 years.

The AP reports that “Germany called for the reference to the slowdown to be deleted, saying a time span of 10-15 years was misleading in the context of climate change, which is measured over decades and centuries.”

“The U.S. also urged the authors to include the ‘leading hypothesis’ that the reduction in warming is linked to more heat being transferred to the deep ocean,” the AP noted. “Belgium objected to using 1998 as a starting year for any statistics. …Using 1999 or 2000 as a starting year would yield a more upward-pointing curve. Hungary worried the report would provide ammunition for skeptics.”

Concern by governments over the lull in warming comes ahead of the deadline the world has set for reaching a global climate agreement in 2015. This report would serve as the scientific underpinning of such an agreement.

“This is the culmination of four years’ work by hundreds of scientists, where governments get a chance to ensure the summary for policymakers is clear and concise in a dialogue with the scientists who wrote it, and have the opportunity to raise any topics they think should be highlighted,” Jonathan Lynn, a spokesman for the UN’s climate authority, told the AP.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 01, 2013, 01:38:06 PM
:facepalm: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/1/obama-orders-government-prep-global-warming/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/1/obama-orders-government-prep-global-warming/)

Quote
President Obama issued an executive order Friday directing a government-wide effort to boost preparation in states and local communities for the impact of global warming.

The action orders federal agencies to work with states to build “resilience” against major storms and other weather extremes. For example, the president’s order directs that infrastructure projects like bridges and flood control take into consideration climate conditions of the future, which might require building structures larger or stronger — and likely at a higher price tag.

“The impacts of climate change — including an increase in prolonged periods of excessively high temperatures, more heavy downpours, an increase in wildfires, more severe droughts, permafrost thawing, ocean acidification and sea-level rise — are already affecting communities, natural resources, ecosystems, economies and public health across the nation,” the presidential order said. “The federal government must build on recent progress and pursue new strategies to improve the nation’s preparedness and resilience.”

I wonder if this means we should stop rebuilding cities below sea level? Or wait, I think Obama promised he would lower the sea levels. Never mind.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 01, 2013, 01:57:01 PM
:facepalm: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/1/obama-orders-government-prep-global-warming/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/1/obama-orders-government-prep-global-warming/)

Quote
President Obama issued an executive order Friday directing a government-wide effort to boost preparation in states and local communities for the impact of global warming.

The action orders federal agencies to work with states to build “resilience” against major storms and other weather extremes. For example, the president’s order directs that infrastructure projects like bridges and flood control take into consideration climate conditions of the future, which might require building structures larger or stronger — and likely at a higher price tag.

“The impacts of climate change — including an increase in prolonged periods of excessively high temperatures, more heavy downpours, an increase in wildfires, more severe droughts, permafrost thawing, ocean acidification and sea-level rise — are already affecting communities, natural resources, ecosystems, economies and public health across the nation,” the presidential order said. “The federal government must build on recent progress and pursue new strategies to improve the nation’s preparedness and resilience.”

I wonder if this means we should stop rebuilding cities below sea level? Or wait, I think Obama promised he would lower the sea levels. Never mind.

Yeah, we probably just should have abandoned the port that handles the greatest volume of cargo in the United States.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 01, 2013, 02:55:19 PM
:facepalm: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/1/obama-orders-government-prep-global-warming/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/1/obama-orders-government-prep-global-warming/)

Quote
President Obama issued an executive order Friday directing a government-wide effort to boost preparation in states and local communities for the impact of global warming.

The action orders federal agencies to work with states to build “resilience” against major storms and other weather extremes. For example, the president’s order directs that infrastructure projects like bridges and flood control take into consideration climate conditions of the future, which might require building structures larger or stronger — and likely at a higher price tag.

“The impacts of climate change — including an increase in prolonged periods of excessively high temperatures, more heavy downpours, an increase in wildfires, more severe droughts, permafrost thawing, ocean acidification and sea-level rise — are already affecting communities, natural resources, ecosystems, economies and public health across the nation,” the presidential order said. “The federal government must build on recent progress and pursue new strategies to improve the nation’s preparedness and resilience.”

I wonder if this means we should stop rebuilding cities below sea level? Or wait, I think Obama promised he would lower the sea levels. Never mind.

Yeah, we probably just should have abandoned the port that handles the greatest volume of cargo in the United States.

by definition, wouldn't the port be at or above sea level? I'm talking about re-building all the shacks that were below sea level.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 01, 2013, 02:57:14 PM
:facepalm: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/1/obama-orders-government-prep-global-warming/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/1/obama-orders-government-prep-global-warming/)

Quote
President Obama issued an executive order Friday directing a government-wide effort to boost preparation in states and local communities for the impact of global warming.

The action orders federal agencies to work with states to build “resilience” against major storms and other weather extremes. For example, the president’s order directs that infrastructure projects like bridges and flood control take into consideration climate conditions of the future, which might require building structures larger or stronger — and likely at a higher price tag.

“The impacts of climate change — including an increase in prolonged periods of excessively high temperatures, more heavy downpours, an increase in wildfires, more severe droughts, permafrost thawing, ocean acidification and sea-level rise — are already affecting communities, natural resources, ecosystems, economies and public health across the nation,” the presidential order said. “The federal government must build on recent progress and pursue new strategies to improve the nation’s preparedness and resilience.”

I wonder if this means we should stop rebuilding cities below sea level? Or wait, I think Obama promised he would lower the sea levels. Never mind.

Yeah, we probably just should have abandoned the port that handles the greatest volume of cargo in the United States.

by definition, wouldn't the port be at or above sea level? I'm talking about re-building all the shacks that were below sea level.

It's hard to have a large port without a large city.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on November 01, 2013, 03:03:31 PM
:facepalm: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/1/obama-orders-government-prep-global-warming/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/1/obama-orders-government-prep-global-warming/)

Quote
President Obama issued an executive order Friday directing a government-wide effort to boost preparation in states and local communities for the impact of global warming.

The action orders federal agencies to work with states to build “resilience” against major storms and other weather extremes. For example, the president’s order directs that infrastructure projects like bridges and flood control take into consideration climate conditions of the future, which might require building structures larger or stronger — and likely at a higher price tag.

“The impacts of climate change — including an increase in prolonged periods of excessively high temperatures, more heavy downpours, an increase in wildfires, more severe droughts, permafrost thawing, ocean acidification and sea-level rise — are already affecting communities, natural resources, ecosystems, economies and public health across the nation,” the presidential order said. “The federal government must build on recent progress and pursue new strategies to improve the nation’s preparedness and resilience.”

I wonder if this means we should stop rebuilding cities below sea level? Or wait, I think Obama promised he would lower the sea levels. Never mind.

Yeah, we probably just should have abandoned the port that handles the greatest volume of cargo in the United States.

by definition, wouldn't the port be at or above sea level? I'm talking about re-building all the shacks that were below sea level.

It's hard to have a large port without a large city.

That port only accounts for 8.3% of the country's tonnage.  It'll find another place to land bro.

SOURCE:  http://web.archive.org/web/20070104212555/http://www.aapa-ports.org/files/Statistics/2004_US_PORT_CARGO_TONNAGE_RANKINGS.xls

ETA:  My math was wrong.  8.4%.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 01, 2013, 03:07:13 PM
:facepalm: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/1/obama-orders-government-prep-global-warming/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/1/obama-orders-government-prep-global-warming/)

Quote
President Obama issued an executive order Friday directing a government-wide effort to boost preparation in states and local communities for the impact of global warming.

The action orders federal agencies to work with states to build “resilience” against major storms and other weather extremes. For example, the president’s order directs that infrastructure projects like bridges and flood control take into consideration climate conditions of the future, which might require building structures larger or stronger — and likely at a higher price tag.

“The impacts of climate change — including an increase in prolonged periods of excessively high temperatures, more heavy downpours, an increase in wildfires, more severe droughts, permafrost thawing, ocean acidification and sea-level rise — are already affecting communities, natural resources, ecosystems, economies and public health across the nation,” the presidential order said. “The federal government must build on recent progress and pursue new strategies to improve the nation’s preparedness and resilience.”

I wonder if this means we should stop rebuilding cities below sea level? Or wait, I think Obama promised he would lower the sea levels. Never mind.

Yeah, we probably just should have abandoned the port that handles the greatest volume of cargo in the United States.

by definition, wouldn't the port be at or above sea level? I'm talking about re-building all the shacks that were below sea level.

It's hard to have a large port without a large city.

That port only accounts for 8.3% of the country's tonnage.  It'll find another place to land bro.

What did the US spend on rebuilding New Orleans? What would it cost to increase capacity at some other port by more than 240,000,000 tons and then build infrastructure to transport that cargo? I think it most likely is more cost effective to just send aid to New Orleans every 50 years or so, but I would honestly like to see some kind of cost comparison if there is one that actually exists.

What is the solution to all of the exports that are floated down the Mississippi to the Port of New Orleans? Railroad to Houston?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: WillieWatanabe on November 01, 2013, 03:11:03 PM
ahh yes..."The weather is SO MUCH MORE EXTREME" argument.  ugh.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 01, 2013, 03:18:42 PM
ahh yes..."The weather is SO MUCH MORE EXTREME" argument.  ugh.

I know, it's so idiotic, and yet the President of the United States is leading the charge! (Though he's certainly not reducing his own carbon emissions from Air Force One - he'll be the most traveled (and vacationed) president in history by the time his 8 years are up).
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on November 01, 2013, 03:26:25 PM
:facepalm: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/1/obama-orders-government-prep-global-warming/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/1/obama-orders-government-prep-global-warming/)

Quote
President Obama issued an executive order Friday directing a government-wide effort to boost preparation in states and local communities for the impact of global warming.

The action orders federal agencies to work with states to build “resilience” against major storms and other weather extremes. For example, the president’s order directs that infrastructure projects like bridges and flood control take into consideration climate conditions of the future, which might require building structures larger or stronger — and likely at a higher price tag.

“The impacts of climate change — including an increase in prolonged periods of excessively high temperatures, more heavy downpours, an increase in wildfires, more severe droughts, permafrost thawing, ocean acidification and sea-level rise — are already affecting communities, natural resources, ecosystems, economies and public health across the nation,” the presidential order said. “The federal government must build on recent progress and pursue new strategies to improve the nation’s preparedness and resilience.”

I wonder if this means we should stop rebuilding cities below sea level? Or wait, I think Obama promised he would lower the sea levels. Never mind.

Yeah, we probably just should have abandoned the port that handles the greatest volume of cargo in the United States.

by definition, wouldn't the port be at or above sea level? I'm talking about re-building all the shacks that were below sea level.

It's hard to have a large port without a large city.

That port only accounts for 8.3% of the country's tonnage.  It'll find another place to land bro.

What did the US spend on rebuilding New Orleans? What would it cost to increase capacity at some other port by more than 240,000,000 tons and then build infrastructure to transport that cargo? I think it most likely is more cost effective to just send aid to New Orleans every 50 years or so, but I would honestly like to see some kind of cost comparison if there is one that actually exists.

Fair questions.  My perspective is that the government shouldn't be much involved in insuring, building/re-building, owning, and operating these ports.  Free market, man.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 01, 2013, 03:39:37 PM
Fair questions.  My perspective is that the government shouldn't be much involved in insuring, building/re-building, owning, and operating these ports.  Free market, man.

Didn't the free market decide to locate New Orleans at the mouth of the Mississippi River? I think it makes a lot of sense for the government to speed the process of rebuilding important cities by providing disaster relief. Not spending that money comes at a big cost to the US government as well, in the form of lost revenues.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on November 01, 2013, 03:41:58 PM
Saving money by spending it.  :excited:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 01, 2013, 03:45:03 PM
Saving money by spending it.  :excited:

Isn't that how investments work?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on November 01, 2013, 04:12:04 PM
Saving money by spending it.  :excited:

 :Chirp:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Stupid Fitz on November 05, 2013, 04:12:18 PM
A little nervous guys. Took DogSF for a walk last night. Grabbed a "heavy jacket" expecting it to be pretty chilly. Ended up losing the jacket and DogSF panted quite a bit. It's November guys, we should at least be wearing semi heavy jackets by now. I'm thinking we should start putting black stuff on the glaciers immediately like Beems said.

-source- DogSF and SF's walk last night.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on November 05, 2013, 04:29:44 PM
A little nervous guys. Took DogSF for a walk last night. Grabbed a "heavy jacket" expecting it to be pretty chilly. Ended up losing the jacket and DogSF panted quite a bit. It's November guys, we should at least be wearing semi heavy jackets by now. I'm thinking we should start putting black stuff on the glaciers immediately like Beems said.

-source- DogSF and SF's walk last night.

Actually, that was for the 70's ice age scare. For the current warming scare, Beems wants to build giant smokestacks and pump some other chemicals into the stratosphere to help cool things down.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Stupid Fitz on November 06, 2013, 12:29:56 PM
really cold today.  DogSF wouldn't even go out to pee.

we are fine guys

Source - DogSF peed on my carpet at little  :curse:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 06, 2013, 09:58:32 PM
Keep in mind, the people pushing AGW, are the same people telling you fracking is damaging your drinking water.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on November 14, 2013, 11:35:07 AM
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/2013-on-track-to-be-seventh-warmest-year-since-1850-16738


Keep in mind, the people pushing AGW, are the same people telling you fracking is damaging your drinking water.
you might actually be Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 14, 2013, 12:15:27 PM
Edna might be the most uninformed misinformed person on earth (which of course includes the pit), and I find that remarkable.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 15, 2013, 09:48:33 AM
The 7th warmest year in the last 163 years, a mere tiny pin hole on the time line of the Earth, where we know it's been warmer than has been in the last 163 years and and we know it's been much colder than the last 163 years.   Yet Warmists want to nail the "warming" (which some entities question, inlcuding questioning the current gov't methods of measuring temps) entirely on the back of a trace gas.   Amazing.

Some other news.   This year to date has seen one of the lowest ebbs in extreme weather in the United States in recorded history.

Tornado activity: Trendline is for 2013 to have the fewest tornadoes ever recorded (Will be blamed on climate change, after above average year was blamed on climate change a few years ago.  Of course historical trendline discussion by Warmists almost wholly dismisses factors like-Weather radar technology, urban sprawl, more eyes on the sky/numbers of storm chasers etc. etc.).   

The U.S. Historical Climatology Network of weather stations while likely record that 2013 will have the fewest number of above 90 degree days ever recorded by the stations on this network in one calendar year.

The U.S. will likely be hit by zero storms at Hurricane strength in 2013. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 15, 2013, 10:33:49 AM
Like dax, I'm also confused as to how the 7th hottest year in the last 163 is dispositive of anything.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Stupid Fitz on November 22, 2013, 08:43:15 PM
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/2013-on-track-to-be-seventh-warmest-year-since-1850-16738


Keep in mind, the people pushing AGW, are the same people telling you fracking is damaging your drinking water.
you might actually be Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

With EDN on this one.  Pumping chemicals in the ground puts chemicals in the ground.  Pretty certain of this. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: mocat on December 06, 2013, 10:28:31 AM
http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/05/report-scientists-predict-a-century-of-global-cooling/ (http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/05/report-scientists-predict-a-century-of-global-cooling/)

 :runaway:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 06, 2013, 10:57:19 AM
Just taking a quick check: are there any libtards on here who still believe in AGW?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 06, 2013, 11:15:12 AM
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/2013-on-track-to-be-seventh-warmest-year-since-1850-16738


Keep in mind, the people pushing AGW, are the same people telling you fracking is damaging your drinking water.
you might actually be Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

With EDN on this one.  Pumping chemicals in the ground puts chemicals in the ground.  Pretty certain of this.

That makes 2 Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) troglodytes.  Anyone else want to out themselves?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on December 06, 2013, 11:24:31 AM
Just taking a quick check: are there any libtards on here who still believe in AGW?

I don't think greenhouse gases follow party lines.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on December 06, 2013, 12:51:16 PM
I think conservatives are much more skeptical of the "proof" that is offered by climate models. They are simply an educated guess, and they have all been wrong, so far. The parameters and data are constantly changed to manipulate the desired outcome.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 06, 2013, 12:58:31 PM
Just taking a quick check: are there any libtards on here who still believe in AGW?

I don't think greenhouse gases follow party lines.

Ok, we'll pretend this is true. :lol: Anybody on here, conservative or libtard (:lol:, ok, sorry, here we go), who still believes in AGW?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on December 06, 2013, 01:15:16 PM
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/2013-on-track-to-be-seventh-warmest-year-since-1850-16738


Quote
The pace of sea level rise varies regionally. In some parts of the world, such as in Manila in the Philippines, sinking land combined with rising seas is creating coastal flooding concerns even in the absence of a major storm.

Can somebody explain this statement to me? I thought all of the oceans in the world were connected, so how can the average sea level be different, or rise faster, in one part of the world than another?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 06, 2013, 01:27:08 PM
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/2013-on-track-to-be-seventh-warmest-year-since-1850-16738


Quote
The pace of sea level rise varies regionally. In some parts of the world, such as in Manila in the Philippines, sinking land combined with rising seas is creating coastal flooding concerns even in the absence of a major storm.

Can somebody explain this statement to me? I thought all of the oceans in the world were connected, so how can the average sea level be different, or rise faster, in one part of the world than another?

I guess you've never been to the beach. When I was last year, the sea was constantly changing level by a few feet. It was pretty unsettling.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on December 06, 2013, 01:33:29 PM
Just taking a quick check: are there any libtards on here who still believe in AGW?

I don't think greenhouse gases follow party lines.

Ok, we'll pretend this is true. :lol: Anybody on here, conservative or libtard (:lol:, ok, sorry, here we go), who still believes in AGW?

Well, I'm a conservative who believes in AGW. I mean good grief, how could you not believe in greenhouse gases?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 06, 2013, 01:58:09 PM
Just taking a quick check: are there any libtards on here who still believe in AGW?

I don't think greenhouse gases follow party lines.

Ok, we'll pretend this is true. :lol: Anybody on here, conservative or libtard (:lol:, ok, sorry, here we go), who still believes in AGW?

Well, I'm a conservative who believes in AGW. I mean good grief, how could you not believe in greenhouse gases?

Are you referring to gasses such as CO2 and H2O? First, AGW is premised on the (increasingly questionable) theory of the greenhouse effect. Thus, to argue that AGW must be true because of "greenhouse gasses" is circular reasoning and, frankly, idiotic. Second, if gasses such as CO2 are indeed "greenhouse gasses" that cause the earth to warm, then why does the earth not continue to warm despite increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere? Again, calling something a "greenhouse gas" does not make it so. Third, you're about as conservative as Megan McCain.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on December 06, 2013, 02:10:40 PM
(http://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/styles/inline_all/public/YearlySurfaceTempAnom1880-2010.jpg)

(http://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/styles/inline_all/public/DecadelTempAnom1880-200.jpg)

(http://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/styles/inline_all/public/OceanicNinoIndex1950-2010.jpg)

(http://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/styles/inline_all/public/oceanprofile_tempBalmaseda1960-2008.jpg)

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on December 06, 2013, 02:14:01 PM
megan mcain smack  :surprised:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on December 06, 2013, 05:48:11 PM
Just taking a quick check: are there any libtards on here who still believe in AGW?

I don't think greenhouse gases follow party lines.

Ok, we'll pretend this is true. :lol: Anybody on here, conservative or libtard (:lol:, ok, sorry, here we go), who still believes in AGW?

Well, I'm a conservative who believes in AGW. I mean good grief, how could you not believe in greenhouse gases?

Are you referring to gasses such as CO2 and H2O? First, AGW is premised on the (increasingly questionable) theory of the greenhouse effect. Thus, to argue that AGW must be true because of "greenhouse gasses" is circular reasoning and, frankly, idiotic. Second, if gasses such as CO2 are indeed "greenhouse gasses" that cause the earth to warm, then why does the earth not continue to warm despite increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere? Again, calling something a "greenhouse gas" does not make it so. Third, you're about as conservative as Megan McCain.

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

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

Looks like pretty concrete science to me.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 06, 2013, 07:37:51 PM
You should go back and reread the beginning if this thread. The hypotheses of "greenhouse gas" theory are wrong.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on December 06, 2013, 07:49:36 PM
You should go back and reread the beginning if this thread. The hypotheses of "greenhouse gas" theory are wrong.

"the earth is too big and there are too many inputs to know what is causing the warming and ocean acidification and other effects of the fossil fuels that make exxon and shell and bp and chevron some of the richest corporations in the world" - conservatives unless there is a hiccup in the trend, then they pretend to be scientifically literate and honest all of a sudden.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on December 06, 2013, 11:17:52 PM
You should go back and reread the beginning if this thread. The hypotheses of "greenhouse gas" theory are wrong.

"the earth is too big and there are too many inputs to know what is causing the warming and ocean acidification and other effects of the fossil fuels that make exxon and shell and bp and chevron some of the richest corporations in the world" - conservatives unless there is a hiccup in the trend, then they pretend to be scientifically literate and honest all of a sudden.

http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2013/10/15/some-data-on-education-religiosity-ideology-and-science-comp.html?lastPage=true&postSubmitted=true (http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2013/10/15/some-data-on-education-religiosity-ideology-and-science-comp.html?lastPage=true&postSubmitted=true)

Quote
I've got to confess, though, I found this result surprising. As I pushed the button to run the analysis on my computer, I fully expected I'd be shown a modest negative correlation between identifying with the Tea Party and science comprehension.

But then again, I don't know a single person who identifies with the Tea Party.  All my impressions come from watching cable tv -- & I don't watch Fox News very often -- and reading the "paper" (New York Times daily, plus a variety of politics-focused internet sites like Huffington Post & Politico). 

I'm a little embarrassed, but mainly I'm just glad that I no longer hold this particular mistaken view.

Of course, I still subscribe to my various political and moral assessments--all very negative-- of what I understand the "Tea Party movement" to stand for. I just no longer assume that the people who happen to hold those values are less likely than people who share my political outlooks to have acquired the sorts of knowledge and dispositions that a decent science comprehension scale measures.

(http://www.culturalcognition.net/storage/tpscic.png?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1381858984005)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on December 07, 2013, 01:48:44 AM
You should go back and reread the beginning if this thread. The hypotheses of "greenhouse gas" theory are wrong.

Oh, so greenhouse gases do not exist? That's a great argument, K-S-U. You should get far with that one.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on December 07, 2013, 02:52:29 AM
You should go back and reread the beginning if this thread. The hypotheses of "greenhouse gas" theory are wrong.

Oh, so greenhouse gases do not exist? That's a great argument, K-S-U. You should get far with that one.

(http://images.clipartof.com/small/1068462-Moodie-Character-Covering-His-Ears-Poster-Art-Print.jpg)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 07, 2013, 07:57:46 AM
You should go back and reread the beginning if this thread. The hypotheses of "greenhouse gas" theory are wrong.

Oh, so greenhouse gases do not exist? That's a great argument, K-S-U. You should get far with that one.

I'm pretty sure you're not trolling, which is sad, so I'll try to explain this to you again. Of course gasses such as CO2 and H2O exist. The extent to which they have a "greenhouse effect," however, has been overestimated at best. Again, the models that predicted temperatures would rise as greater concentrations of these "greenhouse gasses" entered the atmosphere are wrong.

AGW theory is premised on "greenhouse effect" theory. Thus, your argument that AGW theory is valid because of "greenhouse gasses" is circular reasoning and idiotic. You fit right in among your libtard brothers and sisters.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on December 07, 2013, 11:34:15 AM
http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2013/10/15/some-data-on-education-religiosity-ideology-and-science-comp.html?lastPage=true&postSubmitted=true (http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2013/10/15/some-data-on-education-religiosity-ideology-and-science-comp.html?lastPage=true&postSubmitted=true)

Quote
1.  Tea party members are like everyone else, as far as I can tell, when it comes to science comprehension.

Is this something to be proud of?  I don’t think so. It means that if we were to select a tea-party member at random, there would be a 50% chance he or she would say that “antibiotics kill viruses as well as bacteria” and less than a 40% chance that he or she would be able to correctly interpret data from a simple experiment involving a new skin-rash treatment.

2.  Because tea-party members are “just like everyone else,” they too have among their number some individuals who combine a high degree of scientific knowledge with an impressively developed capacity for engaging in critical reasoning.

But because they are like everyone else, these high "science comprehending" tea-party members will be more likely to display politically biased misinterpretations of empirical data than people who display a lower "science comprehension" apptitude. The greater their capacity to engage in analytical thinking, the more systematically they will use that capacity to ferret out evidence congenial to their predispositions and block out and rationalize away everything else.

Moreover, because others who share their values very sensibly rely on them when trying to keep up with what’s known to science, these high science-comprehending tea-party members -- just like high science-comprehending "Democrats" and "Republicans'" and "libertarians" and "socialists" et al.-- will play a principal role in transmitting the reason-effacing pathogens that pervade our polluted science communication environment.


3. Also like everyone else, tea-party members can be expected, as a result of living in a contaminated science communication environment, to behave in a manner that evinces not only an embarrassing deficiency in self-awareness but also an exceedingly ugly form of contempt for others , thereby amplifying the dynamics that are depriving them along with all the other culturally diverse citizens in the Liberal Republic of Science of the full benefit that this magnificent political regime uniquely confers on reasoning, free individuals.

4. Finally, because they are like everyone else, some of the individuals who have used their reason and freedom to join with others in a project they call the “tea-party” movement realize that they have exactly the same stake in repulsing this repulsive pathology as those individuals who’ve used their reason and their freedom to form associations like the “Democratic Party,” the “Republic Party,” the “Libertarian Party,” the “Socialist Party” etc.

very interesting reading(that is from a link in john dougie's article). it's like a next level dunning-kruger syndrome. all intelligence does is give us greater means to confirm our bias.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on December 07, 2013, 02:13:09 PM
just saw an article on the same subject.  about a paper with data showing that people showed a pretty high degree of inability to process information that conflicted with their preconceived ideals/beliefs.  no difference between left v right leaning individuals in that.  also no difference in smart v dumb people (that is smart people were still better at it, but the degree that they were impaired when they held conflicting beliefs was the same).
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 07, 2013, 09:49:42 PM
Yearly temperature anamolies of nearly 1 degree  :runaway:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Stupid Fitz on December 09, 2013, 12:22:28 PM
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/2013-on-track-to-be-seventh-warmest-year-since-1850-16738


Keep in mind, the people pushing AGW, are the same people telling you fracking is damaging your drinking water.
you might actually be Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

With EDN on this one.  Pumping chemicals in the ground puts chemicals in the ground.  Pretty certain of this.

That makes 2 Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) troglodytes.  Anyone else want to out themselves?

Not sure what this means, but still pretty sure putting stuff in the ground makes it go in the ground. No disputing this, sorry.  Also know people that shazbot! and stuff and they laugh that this is even a talking point. 

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 13, 2013, 10:06:09 AM
It's not just unseasonably cold here - it snowed on the pyramids yesterday. http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-snow-israel-egypt-20131213,0,1691393.story#axzz2nMzV6vMp (http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-snow-israel-egypt-20131213,0,1691393.story#axzz2nMzV6vMp) Can we pump some more "greenhouse gas" into the atmosphere already? This is no fun.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on December 13, 2013, 10:59:31 AM
just saw an article on the same subject.  about a paper with data showing that people showed a pretty high degree of inability to process information that conflicted with their preconceived ideals/beliefs.  no difference between left v right leaning individuals in that.  also no difference in smart v dumb people (that is smart people were still better at it, but the degree that they were impaired when they held conflicting beliefs was the same).

you should read "Thinking Fast and Slow".
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 30, 2013, 03:05:34 PM
Ship of fools (climate change scientists) stranded in heavy ice during the peak of Antarctic summer.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/27/world/antarctica-ship-stuck/ (http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/27/world/antarctica-ship-stuck/)

I thought Al Gore said the ice caps would be much smaller by now?  :dunno:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: steve dave on December 30, 2013, 03:06:44 PM
Ship of fools (climate change scientists)

 :thumbs:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on December 30, 2013, 03:50:38 PM
Ship of fools (climate change scientists)

 :thumbs:

My favorite Robert Plant song (post LZ)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on December 30, 2013, 05:02:00 PM
Quote
They went in search evidence of the world’s melting ice caps, but instead a team of climate scientists have been forced to abandon their mission … because the Antarctic ice is thicker than usual at this time of year.

The scientists have been stuck aboard the stricken MV Akademik Schokalskiy since Christmas Day, with repeated sea rescue attempts being abandoned as icebreaking ships failed to reach them.

Now that effort has been ditched, with experts admitting the ice is just too thick. Instead the crew have built an icy helipad, with plans afoot to rescue the 74-strong team by helicopter.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2531159/Antarctic-crew-build-ice-helipad-help-rescuers.html#ixzz2p0BOO8Sv
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Dugout DickStone on December 30, 2013, 07:42:47 PM
I will admit, that is pretty funny.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: steve dave on December 31, 2013, 12:46:15 PM
Ship of fools (climate change scientists)

 :thumbs:

My favorite Robert Plant song (post LZ)

There was a bar in NYC named Ship of Fools that used to host the K-State watch partys. It closed, tho.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 03, 2014, 01:21:25 PM
:lol: Rachel Maddow is not amused.

(http://photos.washingtonexaminer.biz/cache/606x404-39575075f3cc62e90f18c07d7378336d.jpg)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 03, 2014, 06:11:11 PM
The irony is just too funny. Now the rescue ship is stuck in the ice.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/antarctica/10548690/Antarctic-rescue-ship-now-stuck-in-ice.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/antarctica/10548690/Antarctic-rescue-ship-now-stuck-in-ice.html)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: puniraptor on January 03, 2014, 08:11:12 PM
It's like you guys have never even seen The Day After Tomorrow.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 03, 2014, 09:27:38 PM
:lol: Rachel Maddow is not amused.

(http://photos.washingtonexaminer.biz/cache/606x404-39575075f3cc62e90f18c07d7378336d.jpg)

She appears to have lost weight, yet gained androgyny. How is this possible?!?!?  Warmingesque anamoly???
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 04, 2014, 03:28:25 PM
It's like you guys have never even seen The Day After Tomorrow.

I did, but it wasn't as funny as "An Inconvenient Truth".
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 04, 2014, 05:39:15 PM
Great thread title
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 05, 2014, 08:59:15 AM
Seemed appropriate for thread...

(http://www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2014/01/Not-Ice-copy.jpg)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 06, 2014, 03:43:12 AM
The other interesting things is, the explorer they were seeking to copy sailed right into the region on seas with very little ice back in January 1912.  Today, the ships are stuck in ice and 70 miles short of where Mawson sailed into Commonwealth Bay Antarctica on open waters over 100 years ago. 



Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 06, 2014, 09:07:19 AM
The other interesting things is, the explorer they were seeking to copy sailed right into the region on seas with very little ice back in January 1912.  Today, the ships are stuck in ice and 70 miles short of where Mawson sailed into Commonwealth Bay Antarctica on open waters over 100 years ago.

Greenhouse gases are just a fact. They cause the earth to warm like a greenhouse. Everybody knows this. The warming is obviously hiding somewhere - probably deep in the ocean, way below where all this additional ice seems to be forming. One of these years, it's gonna be drier and hotter than "normal," and then you'll see!
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 06, 2014, 01:28:39 PM
In the Warmest World, "normal" is approximately 150 years.   Earth is approximately 4.5 Billion Years Old any discussion about the Earth being colder (it has been) or warmer (it has been) shall not be recognized.   Nor shall discussion about the Earth being in a state of relative CO2 deficit compared to other periods in its entire history.


Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 06, 2014, 02:07:44 PM
In the Warmest World, "normal" is approximately 150 years.   Earth is approximately 4.5 Billion Years Old any discussion about the Earth being colder (it has been) or warmer (it has been) shall not be recognized.   Nor shall discussion about the Earth being in a state of relative CO2 deficit compared to other periods in its entire history.

The earth is definitely warmer than it would be with less CO2 in the atmosphere, though.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Dugout DickStone on January 06, 2014, 03:16:15 PM
Count me on team global warming.  This sucks
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 06, 2014, 03:28:17 PM
In the Warmest World, "normal" is approximately 150 years.   Earth is approximately 4.5 Billion Years Old any discussion about the Earth being colder (it has been) or warmer (it has been) shall not be recognized.   Nor shall discussion about the Earth being in a state of relative CO2 deficit compared to other periods in its entire history.

The earth is definitely warmer than it would be with less CO2 in the atmosphere, though.

But all roads do not lead back to AGW, and that's what Warmist Propaganda wants everyone to believe.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: WillieWatanabe on January 06, 2014, 03:32:35 PM
Quote
Jesse Ferrell [email protected]_Jesse 6m

via @accumancuso : Al Gore's Book "Inconvenient Truth" available new on Amazon today for $0.01 http://ow.ly/siWgd
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 06, 2014, 03:58:21 PM
In the Warmest World, "normal" is approximately 150 years.   Earth is approximately 4.5 Billion Years Old any discussion about the Earth being colder (it has been) or warmer (it has been) shall not be recognized.   Nor shall discussion about the Earth being in a state of relative CO2 deficit compared to other periods in its entire history.

The earth is definitely warmer than it would be with less CO2 in the atmosphere, though.

(1) You don't know that, and (2) you can't say by how much, so isn't that comment both stupid and irrelevant?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 06, 2014, 04:51:14 PM
In the Warmest World, "normal" is approximately 150 years.   Earth is approximately 4.5 Billion Years Old any discussion about the Earth being colder (it has been) or warmer (it has been) shall not be recognized.   Nor shall discussion about the Earth being in a state of relative CO2 deficit compared to other periods in its entire history.

The earth is definitely warmer than it would be with less CO2 in the atmosphere, though.

(1) You don't know that, and (2) you can't say by how much, so isn't that comment both stupid and irrelevant?

I absolutely do know that. I guess maybe if you are replacing the lost CO2 with some other greenhouse gas, then the earth would retain as much heat as it is now, but that is pretty irrelevant.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 06, 2014, 05:06:32 PM
In the Warmest World, "normal" is approximately 150 years.   Earth is approximately 4.5 Billion Years Old any discussion about the Earth being colder (it has been) or warmer (it has been) shall not be recognized.   Nor shall discussion about the Earth being in a state of relative CO2 deficit compared to other periods in its entire history.

The earth is definitely warmer than it would be with less CO2 in the atmosphere, though.

(1) You don't know that, and (2) you can't say by how much, so isn't that comment both stupid and irrelevant?

I absolutely do know that.

You absolutely don't. Nobody does. The "greenhouse effect" is a theory. It is not a fact.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 06, 2014, 05:08:42 PM
In the Warmest World, "normal" is approximately 150 years.   Earth is approximately 4.5 Billion Years Old any discussion about the Earth being colder (it has been) or warmer (it has been) shall not be recognized.   Nor shall discussion about the Earth being in a state of relative CO2 deficit compared to other periods in its entire history.

The earth is definitely warmer than it would be with less CO2 in the atmosphere, though.

(1) You don't know that, and (2) you can't say by how much, so isn't that comment both stupid and irrelevant?

I absolutely do know that.

You absolutely don't. Nobody does. The "greenhouse effect" is a theory. It is not a fact.

 :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 06, 2014, 05:19:12 PM
In the Warmest World, "normal" is approximately 150 years.   Earth is approximately 4.5 Billion Years Old any discussion about the Earth being colder (it has been) or warmer (it has been) shall not be recognized.   Nor shall discussion about the Earth being in a state of relative CO2 deficit compared to other periods in its entire history.

The earth is definitely warmer than it would be with less CO2 in the atmosphere, though.

Nobody has proven that increased CO2 concentration causes global warming, or, if the increased CO2 concentration is caused by global warming.

Historically, increased CO2 is a lagging indicator, not leading.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 06, 2014, 06:34:30 PM
In the Warmest World, "normal" is approximately 150 years.   Earth is approximately 4.5 Billion Years Old any discussion about the Earth being colder (it has been) or warmer (it has been) shall not be recognized.   Nor shall discussion about the Earth being in a state of relative CO2 deficit compared to other periods in its entire history.

The earth is definitely warmer than it would be with less CO2 in the atmosphere, though.

Nobody has proven that increased CO2 concentration causes global warming, or, if the increased CO2 concentration is caused by global warming.

Historically, increased CO2 is a lagging indicator, not leading.

Well, that can't be true. Nuts is absolutely certain!
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 06, 2014, 11:37:37 PM
What are we doing as a world to keep the sun from burning out?  Are there any models?  If so, are any of them not wrong?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 07, 2014, 08:23:48 AM
In the Warmest World, "normal" is approximately 150 years.   Earth is approximately 4.5 Billion Years Old any discussion about the Earth being colder (it has been) or warmer (it has been) shall not be recognized.   Nor shall discussion about the Earth being in a state of relative CO2 deficit compared to other periods in its entire history.

The earth is definitely warmer than it would be with less CO2 in the atmosphere, though.

Nobody has proven that increased CO2 concentration causes global warming, or, if the increased CO2 concentration is caused by global warming.

Historically, increased CO2 is a lagging indicator, not leading.

Well, that can't be true. Nuts is absolutely certain!

It's not like CO2 levels are the only thing that affect earth temperatures.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 07, 2014, 08:46:58 AM
In the Warmest World, "normal" is approximately 150 years.   Earth is approximately 4.5 Billion Years Old any discussion about the Earth being colder (it has been) or warmer (it has been) shall not be recognized.   Nor shall discussion about the Earth being in a state of relative CO2 deficit compared to other periods in its entire history.

The earth is definitely warmer than it would be with less CO2 in the atmosphere, though.

Nobody has proven that increased CO2 concentration causes global warming, or, if the increased CO2 concentration is caused by global warming.

Historically, increased CO2 is a lagging indicator, not leading.

Well, that can't be true. Nuts is absolutely certain!

It's not like CO2 levels are the only thing that affect earth temperatures.

Oh, just the only taxable thing?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 07, 2014, 08:52:09 AM
In the Warmest World, "normal" is approximately 150 years.   Earth is approximately 4.5 Billion Years Old any discussion about the Earth being colder (it has been) or warmer (it has been) shall not be recognized.   Nor shall discussion about the Earth being in a state of relative CO2 deficit compared to other periods in its entire history.

The earth is definitely warmer than it would be with less CO2 in the atmosphere, though.

Nobody has proven that increased CO2 concentration causes global warming, or, if the increased CO2 concentration is caused by global warming.

Historically, increased CO2 is a lagging indicator, not leading.

Well, that can't be true. Nuts is absolutely certain!

It's not like CO2 levels are the only thing that affect earth temperatures.

Oh, just the only taxable thing?

Maybe. I think you could probably tax water vapor fairly easily, too.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 07, 2014, 11:14:24 AM
In the Warmest World, "normal" is approximately 150 years.   Earth is approximately 4.5 Billion Years Old any discussion about the Earth being colder (it has been) or warmer (it has been) shall not be recognized.   Nor shall discussion about the Earth being in a state of relative CO2 deficit compared to other periods in its entire history.

The earth is definitely warmer than it would be with less CO2 in the atmosphere, though.

Nobody has proven that increased CO2 concentration causes global warming, or, if the increased CO2 concentration is caused by global warming.

Historically, increased CO2 is a lagging indicator, not leading.

Well, that can't be true. Nuts is absolutely certain!

It's not like CO2 levels are the only thing that affect earth temperatures.

Oh, just the only taxable thing?

Maybe. I think you could probably tax water vapor fairly easily, too.

Taxing clouds seems silly, especially since they will actually cool the Earth as the natural warming cycles wax and wane.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on January 07, 2014, 11:32:07 AM
it's dry (and hot) as hell here.  those dumbasses should have sailed this way.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on January 07, 2014, 11:46:02 AM
are the gE scientists giving equal weight to the record setting highs being experienced from oslo to irkutsk?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 07, 2014, 12:17:24 PM
are the gE scientists giving equal weight to the record setting highs being experienced from oslo to irkutsk?

actual temperature doesn't seem to matter to the climate change crowd any more since the average global temps have stabilized over the last 15 years. I think that's why the don't call it global warming any longer.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on January 07, 2014, 01:13:48 PM

are the gE scientists giving equal weight to the record setting highs being experienced from oslo to irkutsk?

actual temperature doesn't seem to matter to the climate change crowd any more since the average global temps have stabilized over the last 15 years. I think that's why the don't call it global warming any longer.
I can't tell if that is a yes or a no.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 07, 2014, 01:33:43 PM

are the gE scientists giving equal weight to the record setting highs being experienced from oslo to irkutsk?

actual temperature doesn't seem to matter to the climate change crowd any more since the average global temps have stabilized over the last 15 years. I think that's why the don't call it global warming any longer.
I can't tell if that is a yes or a no.

Temperatures are meaningless to climate changers.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: steve dave on January 07, 2014, 03:20:16 PM

are the gE scientists giving equal weight to the record setting highs being experienced from oslo to irkutsk?

actual temperature doesn't seem to matter to the climate change crowd any more since the average global temps have stabilized over the last 15 years. I think that's why the don't call it global warming any longer.
I can't tell if that is a yes or a no.

Temperatures are meaningless to climate changers.

are they meaningful to you?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 07, 2014, 03:31:23 PM

are the gE scientists giving equal weight to the record setting highs being experienced from oslo to irkutsk?

actual temperature doesn't seem to matter to the climate change crowd any more since the average global temps have stabilized over the last 15 years. I think that's why the don't call it global warming any longer.
I can't tell if that is a yes or a no.

Temperatures are meaningless to climate changers.

are they meaningful to you?

Only if it's too hot or too cold.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 07, 2014, 09:00:15 PM
Quote
Jesse Ferrell [email protected]_Jesse 6m

via @accumancuso : Al Gore's Book "Inconvenient Truth" available new on Amazon today for $0.01 http://ow.ly/siWgd

It's a book :O
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 08, 2014, 05:00:08 AM
(https://scontent-b-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/1604662_10151854636315966_1736061788_n.jpg)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on January 08, 2014, 11:56:46 AM
http://www.dailyinterlake.com/opinion/article_9444fff2-74fd-11e3-b5b0-001a4bcf887a.html (http://www.dailyinterlake.com/opinion/article_9444fff2-74fd-11e3-b5b0-001a4bcf887a.html)

Quote
Use of motivated reasoning to deny human-caused climate change is a belief system akin to a superstition but with an end goal; it is not founded on science, logical reasoning, and evidence. Myerowitz’s op-ed demonstrates all of the characteristics of motivated reasoning.

So let’s examine some of his contrived logic and claims in detail. First, if, as he claims, the climate isn’t warming, then he needs to explain why the heat content of the atmosphere, ocean, and land is increasing, why glaciers are retreating almost everywhere in the world, why sea level is rising, why the mass of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets is declining, and why the minimum extent of Arctic sea is declining.

Secondly, if it isn’t warming, then claiming that there is a normal cyclical change in climate plus a small contribution of man-made warming is itself a contradiction of that claim.

Thirdly, if the theory of man-made global warming is “not a very good one,” how does he know the contribution of man-made warming is small? The fact is that climate models predict the observed increase in global average temperatures since 1951 only if human-caused climate forcing is included in the models. When the models are forced only with known natural sources, such as changes in solar input, the models fail to accurately predict the observed temperature increase. Fourthly, if there is a “normal cyclical change, then what is his explanation of the mechanism causing the change? Any change in climate is due to a change in the Earth’s energy balance, and saying it’s a “natural cyclical change” is not an explanation of the cause, but instead is a description of a pattern caused by something.

 Myerowitz ignores the fact that his claims are refuted by an extensive body of observational data and evidence assessed in the recently released Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2013 report on the physical science basis of climate change. This report authored by 259 climate experts is an extensive analysis of the current state-of-knowledge about climate change. It is based on results of the latest findings and conclusions of published, peer-reviewed studies conducted by climate experts all over the world.

The evidence cited and discussed in the report all points to the same conclusion: Our entire planet is accumulating heat due to an energy imbalance caused primarily by the rising concentration of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere from fossil fuel combustion and other human activities. Due to this imbalance, the Earth’s climate is warming, resulting in warming of the atmosphere and oceans and changes in many other climate conditions.

The report’s conclusions particularly relevant to Myerowitz’s claims are: 1) “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia.” 2) “It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.” 3) “The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.” (By “extremely likely,” the report’s authors mean 95-100 percent certainty.)

While Myerowitz acknowledges his awareness of this report, which is easily accessible, he ignores its conclusions because they contradict his claims. The only thing he offers to support his bogus claims is more bogus claims. For example, he asserts that there has been “no change in global temperature of our planet since 1998.” The fact is that analyses of surface temperature data, which are collected at thousands of weather stations and on ocean buoys and ships show the global average surface temperature over the land and the oceans has gotten warmer since 1998, and the average decadal surface temperature of the globe has increased every consecutive decade over the past 30 years. All 10 of the warmest years of record beginning in 1850 have occurred since 1997.

http://science.time.com/2014/01/06/climate-change-driving-cold-weather/ (http://science.time.com/2014/01/06/climate-change-driving-cold-weather/)

Quote
Unsurprisingly, the extreme cold has brought out the climate change skeptics, who point to the freeze and the recent snowstorms and say, essentially, “nyah-nyah.” Now this is where I would usually point to the fact that the occasional cold snap—even one as extreme as much of the U.S. is experiencing now—doesn’t change the overall trajectory of a warming planet. Weather is what happens in the atmosphere day to day; climate is how the atmosphere behaves over long periods of time. Winters in the U.S. have been warming steadily over the past century, and even faster in recent decades, so it would take more than a few sub-zero days to cancel that out.

But not only does the cold spell not disprove climate change, it may well be that global warming could be making the occasional bout of extreme cold weather in the U.S. even more likely. Right now much of the U.S. is in the grip of a polar vortex, which is pretty much what it sounds like: a whirlwind of extremely cold, extremely dense air that forms near the poles. Usually the fast winds in the vortex—which can top 100 mph (161 k/h)—keep that cold air locked up in the Arctic. But when the winds weaken, the vortex can begin to wobble like a drunk on his fourth martini, and the Arctic air can escape and spill southward, bringing Arctic weather with it. In this case, nearly the entire polar vortex has tumbled southward, leading to record-breaking cold, as you can see in this weatherbell.com graphic:

(http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/files/2014/01/500_mb_Mon_night.jpg)

That disruption to the polar vortex may have been triggered by a sudden stratospheric warming event, a phenomenon Rick Grow explained at the Washington Post a few days ago:

    "Large atmospheric waves move upward from the troposphere — where most weather occurs — into the stratosphere, which is the layer of air above the troposphere. These waves, which are called Rossby waves, transport energy and momentum from the troposphere to the stratosphere. This energy and momentum transfer generates a circulation in the stratosphere, which features sinking air in the polar latitudes and rising air in the lowest latitudes. As air sinks, it warms. If the stratospheric air warms rapidly in the Arctic, it will throw the circulation off balance. This can cause a major disruption to the polar vortex, stretching it and — sometimes — splitting it apart."

(MORE: November Was Cold, But the Climate Keeps Warming)

What does that have to do with climate change? Sea ice is vanishing from the Arctic thanks to climate change, which leaves behind dark open ocean water, which absorbs more of the heat from the sun than reflective ice. That in turn is helping to cause the Arctic to warm faster than the rest of the planet, almost twice the global average. The jet stream—the belt of fast-flowing, westerly winds that essentially serves as the boundary between cold northern air and warmer southern air—is driven by temperature difference between the northerly latitudes and the tropical ones. Some scientists theorize that as that temperature difference narrows, it may weaken the jet stream, which in turns makes it more likely that cold Arctic air will escape the polar vortex and flow southward. Right now, an unusually large kink in the jet stream has that Arctic air flowing much further south than it usually would.

Still, this research is fairly preliminary, in part because extreme Arctic sea ice loss is a fairly recent phenomenon, so scientists don’t have the long data sets they need to draw more robust conclusions about the interaction between Arctic warming and cold snaps. In fact, the most recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that it was likely that the jet stream would shift towards the north as the climate warmed, and that the polar vortex would actually contract, even as a 2009 study found that sudden stratospheric warming events are becoming more frequent, which in turn seems to be driven by the rapid loss in Arctic sea ice.

And while a muddle like that would seem to make the science less rather than more reliable, it’s actually one more bit of proof that climate change is real. Global warming is sometimes thought of more as “global weirding,” with all manner of complex disruptions occurring over time. This week’s events show that climate change is almost certainly screwing with weather patterns ways that go beyond mere increases in temperature—meaning that you’d be smart to hold onto those winter coats for a while longer.



Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: WillieWatanabe on January 08, 2014, 11:59:56 AM
http://meteorologicalmusings.blogspot.com/2014/01/of-course-global-warming-caused-todays.html

http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2014/01/does-cold-wave-imply-anything-about.html
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 08, 2014, 01:04:44 PM
Beeems, there is more antarctic ice now than ever before. Your blogger is a GW shill.

(http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.antarctic.png)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 08, 2014, 01:15:02 PM
Poor time magazine getting caught up in hype again.

(http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/files/2014/01/two_time_magazine_in_one_1-7-14-1-big.jpg)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on January 08, 2014, 03:03:22 PM
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm (http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm)

The proof that man-made CO2 is causing global warming is like the chain of evidence in a court case. CO2 keeps the Earth warmer than it would be without it. Humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere, mainly by burning fossil fuels. And there is empirical evidence that the rising temperatures are being caused by the increased CO2.

The Earth is wrapped in an invisible blanket

It is the Earth’s atmosphere that makes most life possible. To understand this, we can look at the moon. On the surface, the moon’s temperature during daytime can reach 100°C (212°F). At night, it can plunge to minus 173°C, or -279.4°F. In comparison, the coldest temperature on Earth was recorded in Antarctica: ?89.2°C (?128.6°F). According to the WMO, the hottest was 56.7°C (134°F), measured on 10 July 1913 at Greenland Ranch (Death Valley).

Man could not survive in the temperatures on the moon, even if there was air to breathe. Humans, plants and animals can’t tolerate the extremes of temperature on Earth unless they evolve special ways to deal with the heat or the cold. Nearly all life on Earth lives in areas that are more hospitable, where temperatures are far less extreme.

Yet the Earth and the moon are virtually the same distance from the sun, so why do we experience much less heat and cold than the moon? The answer is because of our atmosphere. The moon doesn’t have one, so it is exposed to the full strength of energy coming from the sun. At night, temperatures plunge because there is no atmosphere to keep the heat in, as there is on Earth.

The laws of physics tell us that without the atmosphere, the Earth would be approximately 33°C (59.4°F) cooler than it actually is.

This would make most of the surface uninhabitable for humans. Agriculture as we know it would be more or less impossible if the average temperature was ?18 °C. In other words, it would be freezing cold even at the height of summer.

The reason that the Earth is warm enough to sustain life is because of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. These gases act like a blanket, keeping the Earth warm by preventing some of the sun’s energy being re-radiated into space. The effect is exactly the same as wrapping yourself in a blanket – it reduces heat loss from your body and keeps you warm.

If we add more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, the effect is like wrapping yourself in a thicker blanket: even less heat is lost. So how can we tell what effect CO2 is having on temperatures, and if the increase in atmospheric CO2 is really making the planet warmer?

One way of measuring the effect of CO2 is by using satellites to compare how much energy is arriving from the sun, and how much is leaving the Earth. What scientists have seen over the last few decades is a gradual decrease in the amount of energy being re-radiated back into space. In the same period, the amount of energy arriving from the sun has not changed very much at all. This is the first piece of evidence: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere.

(http://skepticalscience.com/graphics/Total_Heat_Content_2011_med.jpg)

Total Earth Heat Content from Church et al. (2011)

What can keep the energy in the atmosphere? The answer is greenhouse gases. Science has known about the effect of certain gases for over a century. They ‘capture’ energy, and then emit it in random directions. The primary greenhouse gases – carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), water vapour, nitrous oxide and ozone – comprise around 1% of the air.

This tiny amount has a very powerful effect, keeping the planet 33°C (59.4°F) warmer than it would be without them. (The main components of the atmosphere – nitrogen and oxygen – are not greenhouse gases, because they are virtually unaffected by long-wave, or infrared, radiation). This is the second piece of evidence: a provable mechanism by which energy can be trapped in the atmosphere.

For our next piece of evidence, we must look at the amount of CO2 in the air. We know from bubbles of air trapped in ice cores that before the industrial revolution, the amount of CO2 in the air was approximately 280 parts per million (ppm). In June 2013, the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory in Hawaii announced that, for the first time in thousands of years, the amount of CO2 in the air had gone up to 400ppm. That information gives us the next piece of evidence; CO2 has increased by nearly 43% in the last 150 years.

(http://www.sksforum.org/image.php?t=11005&u=http%3A%2F%2Fsksforum.org%2Fimage.php%3Fu%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.skepticalscience.com%252Fimages%252FCO2-Emissions-vs-Levels.gif)

Atmospheric CO2 levels (Green is Law Dome ice core, Blue is Mauna Loa, Hawaii) and Cumulative CO2 emissions (CDIAC). While atmospheric CO2 levels are usually expressed in parts per million, here they are displayed as the amount of CO2 residing in the atmosphere in gigatonnes. CO2 emissions includes fossil fuel emissions, cement production and emissions from gas flaring.

The Smoking Gun

The final piece of evidence is ‘the smoking gun’, the proof that CO2 is causing the increases in temperature. CO2 traps energy at very specific wavelengths, while other greenhouse gases trap different wavelengths.  In physics, these wavelengths can be measured using a technique called spectroscopy. Here’s an example:

(http://www.sksforum.org/image.php?t=11005&u=http%3A%2F%2Fsksforum.org%2Fimage.php%3Fu%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.skepticalscience.com%252Fimages%252FGreenhouse_Spectrum.gif)

Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).

The graph shows different wavelengths of energy, measured at the Earth’s surface. Among the spikes you can see energy being radiated back to Earth by ozone (O3), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20). But the spike for CO2 on the left dwarfs all the other greenhouse gases, and tells us something very important: most of the energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelength of energy captured by CO2.

Summing Up

Like a detective story, first you need a victim, in this case the planet Earth: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere.

Then you need a method, and ask how the energy could be made to remain. For that, you need a provable mechanism by which energy can be trapped in the atmosphere, and greenhouse gases provide that mechanism.

Next, you need a ‘motive’. Why has this happened? Because CO2 has increased by nearly 50% in the last 150 years and the increase is from burning fossil fuels.

And finally, the smoking gun, the evidence that proves ‘whodunit’: energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelengths of energy captured by CO2.

The last point is what places CO2 at the scene of the crime. The investigation by science builds up empirical evidence that proves, step by step, that man-made carbon dioxide is causing the Earth to warm up.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 08, 2014, 03:52:21 PM
I'm going to plant my living Christmas tree this weekend for you beems. Should soak up a little CO2.

(http://www.kidsgeo.com/images/gases-in-atemosphere.jpg)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 08, 2014, 04:05:18 PM
http://judithcurry.com/2013/11/28/is-earth-in-energy-deficit/
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on January 08, 2014, 09:36:52 PM
I'm going to plant my living Christmas tree this weekend for you beems. Should soak up a little CO2.

(http://www.kidsgeo.com/images/gases-in-atemosphere.jpg)

what kind is it?  i've heard that sometimes they sell pinus pinea as living xmas trees, but i haven't seen that myself.  i've also heard that they don't transplant well and it's best to grow them from seed.  it's hard to tell what's true and what's fiction, sometimes.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 08, 2014, 09:37:15 PM
BMW is one dumb mother rough rider.

Also, those time article  :ROFL:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 08, 2014, 10:19:18 PM
I'm going to plant my living Christmas tree this weekend for you beems. Should soak up a little CO2.

(http://www.kidsgeo.com/images/gases-in-atemosphere.jpg)

what kind is it?  i've heard that sometimes they sell pinus pinea as living xmas trees, but i haven't seen that myself.  i've also heard that they don't transplant well and it's best to grow them from seed.  it's hard to tell what's true and what's fiction, sometimes.

It's an Aleppo (Pinus halepensis) that is used for landscaping in the warmer parts of the county. Last year I bought a Monterey pine (Pinus radiata)  and it did great with lots of new growth until September, then just dried up in a 2 week time span. I'm not sure if it was lack of water when I went on vacation or it got some type of disease.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on January 08, 2014, 11:59:11 PM
prolly got too hot.  the aleppo should be bulletproof, but i dunno if its seeds taste good.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 11, 2014, 09:39:06 AM
(http://1-ps.googleusercontent.com/h/www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2014/01/580x383xDevil-and-Warming-copy-600x397.jpg.pagespeed.ic._JEz5vJ2nM.webp)

(http://3-ps.googleusercontent.com/h/www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2014/01/502x500xGore-selfie-copy.jpg.pagespeed.ic.gugjWZalNq.webp)

(http://1-ps.googleusercontent.com/h/www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2014/01/580x377xIce-Irony-copy-600x390.jpg.pagespeed.ic.H0IVu3WV4r.webp)

(http://2-ps.googleusercontent.com/h/www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2014/01/470x374xRegulate-Everything-copy.jpg.pagespeed.ic.sHvmydOlPU.webp)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on January 11, 2014, 12:05:31 PM
Wrong thread
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 14, 2014, 09:14:20 PM
Politics as usual. http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/democrats-plan-to-pressure-tv-networks-into-covering-climate-change-20140114 (http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/democrats-plan-to-pressure-tv-networks-into-covering-climate-change-20140114)

Quote
Senate Democrats pledging to get more aggressive on climate change will soon pressure the major TV networks to give the topic far greater attention on the Sunday talking-head shows.

Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, are gathering colleagues' signatures on a letter to the networks asserting that they're ignoring global warming.

"It is beyond my comprehension that you have ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox, that their Sunday shows have discussed climate change in 2012, collectively, for all of eight minutes," Sanders said, citing analysis by the liberal watchdog group Media Matters for America.

Sanders mentioned the letter during a press conference with most other members of Senate Democrats' new, 19-member Climate Action Task Force, and he elaborated on it in a brief interview afterward.

"Sunday news shows are obviously important because they talk to millions of people, but they go beyond that by helping to define what the establishment considers to be important and what is often discussed during the rest of the week," he said.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 14, 2014, 10:26:02 PM
Liberal media in action . . .
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on January 15, 2014, 01:14:31 PM
Wait, the government can tell the media what to put on TV?  :Wha:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Stupid Fitz on January 17, 2014, 08:28:32 PM
Politics as usual. http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/democrats-plan-to-pressure-tv-networks-into-covering-climate-change-20140114 (http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/democrats-plan-to-pressure-tv-networks-into-covering-climate-change-20140114)

Quote
Senate Democrats pledging to get more aggressive on climate change will soon pressure the major TV networks to give the topic far greater attention on the Sunday talking-head shows.

Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, are gathering colleagues' signatures on a letter to the networks asserting that they're ignoring global warming.

"It is beyond my comprehension that you have ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox, that their Sunday shows have discussed climate change in 2012, collectively, for all of eight minutes," Sanders said, citing analysis by the liberal watchdog group Media Matters for America.

Sanders mentioned the letter during a press conference with most other members of Senate Democrats' new, 19-member Climate Action Task Force, and he elaborated on it in a brief interview afterward.

"Sunday news shows are obviously important because they talk to millions of people, but they go beyond that by helping to define what the establishment considers to be important and what is often discussed during the rest of the week," he said.

This is more terrifying than global warmingchange
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 18, 2014, 07:59:49 AM
Has anyone ever read a "Live Science" article linked off Yahoo news. Good lord :facepalm:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: steve dave on January 21, 2014, 02:26:41 PM
from liberal rag NASA

http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-finds-2013-sustained-long-term-climate-warming-trend/#.Ut69kmQo73R

(http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/19d8wfbcuuzbdgif/ku-xlarge.gif)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: The1BigWillie on January 21, 2014, 03:49:07 PM
I like it warmer.  I like the ocean. More warm more ocean.  Win Win.

 :Woohoo:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 21, 2014, 07:04:39 PM
I like how libtards are unable to distinguish between AGW and the weather and have no concept as to how old earth is (even though they hate Jesus and are certain its more than 2014 years old)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on January 21, 2014, 07:24:06 PM
the world's leading physicists are wrong about AGW and i am right because jesus and rush and some republicans in the house said so.
:lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on January 21, 2014, 10:51:22 PM
that map is fake.  you can tell because there isn't a persistent orange blob obscuring central california.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 21, 2014, 11:58:05 PM
that map is fake.  you can tell because there isn't a persistent orange blob obscuring central california.

I need rain  :impatient:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: mocat on January 22, 2014, 09:35:15 AM
is that super hot pocket of Brazil caused by all the super hot chicks in thongs? JUST LOOK AT THOSE BOZANGAZZZZZZIP
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Cire on January 22, 2014, 09:47:05 AM
4th warmest year on record
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Unruly on January 27, 2014, 10:52:21 AM
http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2014/01/26/dnt-canadian-pipeline-explosion.cbc.html
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 27, 2014, 11:03:45 AM
http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2014/01/26/dnt-canadian-pipeline-explosion.cbc.html

 :dunno:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Unruly on January 27, 2014, 11:06:00 AM
KSU Wildcats is all about getting dat pipe so we don't have tanker car fires any more.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 27, 2014, 11:09:47 AM
KSU Wildcats is all about getting dat pipe so we don't have tanker car fires any more.

That was a natural gas pipeline that exploded. Oil pipelines don't explode on their own and are much, much safer than rail.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Unruly on January 27, 2014, 11:16:20 AM
KSU Wildcats is all about getting dat pipe so we don't have tanker car fires any more.

That was a natural gas pipeline that exploded. Oil pipelines don't explode on their own and are much, much safer than rail.

Seems safe to me!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalamazoo_River_oil_spill
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on January 27, 2014, 12:39:58 PM
pipelines are more efficient than trains or anything else, so not using them is stupid.  which pipeline, train or tanker has blown up or spilled most recently is just noise.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on January 27, 2014, 12:45:23 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/24/science/earth/threat-to-bottom-line-spurs-action-on-climate.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/24/science/earth/threat-to-bottom-line-spurs-action-on-climate.html?_r=0)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 27, 2014, 01:04:34 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/24/science/earth/threat-to-bottom-line-spurs-action-on-climate.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/24/science/earth/threat-to-bottom-line-spurs-action-on-climate.html?_r=0)

The most ridiculous, least informative article I've read in a long time.

The world is overpopulated and nothing short of forced sterilization will fix what's truly wrong.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 27, 2014, 01:09:00 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/24/science/earth/threat-to-bottom-line-spurs-action-on-climate.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/24/science/earth/threat-to-bottom-line-spurs-action-on-climate.html?_r=0)

The most ridiculous, least informative article I've read in a long time.

The world is overpopulated and nothing short of forced sterilization will fix what's truly wrong.

Remember when mocat calculated that everyone in the world would have room to just move to Texas? Oh, man. :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: The1BigWillie on January 27, 2014, 02:28:14 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/24/science/earth/threat-to-bottom-line-spurs-action-on-climate.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/24/science/earth/threat-to-bottom-line-spurs-action-on-climate.html?_r=0)

The most ridiculous, least informative article I've read in a long time.

The world is overpopulated and nothing short of forced sterilization will fix what's truly wrong.

Remember when mocat calculated that everyone in the world would have room to just move to Texas? Oh, man. :lol:

Actually I think it was New Hampshire.   :Ugh:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on January 27, 2014, 03:18:32 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/24/science/earth/threat-to-bottom-line-spurs-action-on-climate.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/24/science/earth/threat-to-bottom-line-spurs-action-on-climate.html?_r=0)

The most ridiculous, least informative article I've read in a long time.

The world is overpopulated and nothing short of forced sterilization will fix what's truly wrong.



#teameconomist


Quote
Although many Republicans oppose the idea of a price or tax on carbon pollution, some conservative economists endorse the idea. Among them are Arthur B. Laffer, senior economic adviser to President Ronald Reagan; the Harvard economist N. Gregory Mankiw, who was economic adviser to Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign; and Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the head of the American Action Forum, a conservative think tank, and an economic adviser to the 2008 presidential campaign of Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican.

“There’s no question that if we get substantial changes in atmospheric temperatures, as all the evidence suggests, that it’s going to contribute to sea-level rise,” Mr. Holtz-Eakin said. “There will be agriculture and economic effects — it’s inescapable.” He added, “I’d be shocked if people supported anything other than a carbon tax — that’s how economists think about it.”
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on January 27, 2014, 04:25:19 PM
Haven't checked this thread in a while. Are there any scientific studies saying the global temperature isn't rising yet?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: puniraptor on January 27, 2014, 04:55:11 PM
the world is nowhere close to over populated
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Mr Bread on January 27, 2014, 05:27:59 PM
the world is nowhere close to over populated

subjective
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 27, 2014, 06:26:04 PM
pipelines are more efficient than trains or anything else, so not using them is stupid.  which pipeline, train or tanker has blown up or spilled most recently is just noise.

This. I can't believe there's even a debate on the utility of pipelines compared to train, truck, etc.

Also this :

http://news.msn.com/us/more-oil-spilled-from-trains-in-2013-than-in-previous-4-decades
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on January 27, 2014, 06:36:45 PM
the world is nowhere close to over populated

subjective

subjective yes (i subjectively completely disagree), also objectively wrong.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 27, 2014, 06:42:25 PM
Haven't checked this thread in a while. Are there any scientific studies saying the global temperature isn't rising yet?

Yeah

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10294082/Global-warming-No-actually-were-cooling-claim-scientists.html
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: puniraptor on January 27, 2014, 07:30:07 PM
the world is nowhere close to over populated

subjective

subjective yes (i subjectively completely disagree), also objectively wrong.

Objectively, how close are we (humans on earth) to overpopulated?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on January 27, 2014, 09:49:04 PM
Objectively, how close are we (humans on earth) to overpopulated?

our ability to measure the degree of overpopulation is imprecise, but we can record and evaluate some measurements.

43% of the earth's land surface is altered by human use.
25% of the world's primary production is used my humans.

obviously, much of the earth's land mass is inhabitable and/or marginally usable for humans, and just as obviously, we already concentrate our use in the most advantageous regions.  there's a lot of slop, but it is unambiguous that we use a much greater % than 43% of the land surface's potential to support humans.

primary production is an even sloppier figure.  humans can use some production more intensively, some more efficiently, and significantly increase (or decrease) the total.  nonetheless there are physical limits on primary production and we already monopolize a substantial proportion.

although a value judgement, and hence subjective, i assume that the notion that we do not wish to limit the economic prospects of the current and future human population to a third-world lifestyle rather than one more closely resembling our own is widespread enough that we can also consider as objective the notion that we must also include the expansion of resource use by the current population as part and parcel to growth in population size.


neither of the above metrics speak to real, but difficult to measure, concepts such as climate change, ecosystem services or loss of biodiversity (resilience), all of which impose other limits on the sustainable expansion of the human population.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: puniraptor on January 27, 2014, 10:28:23 PM
thanks, sys. I appreciate your thorough answer. It would be a very interesting study to me to see, at the current global population level, what the equilibrium sustainable standard of living would be with all people being at an equal standard. Obviously 7 billion at suburban omaha levels would smoke the planet in an instant, but maybe all of us could spread out and thrive forever at rural arkansas levels? 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on January 28, 2014, 09:00:33 AM
thanks, sys. I appreciate your thorough answer. It would be a very interesting study to me to see, at the current global population level, what the equilibrium sustainable standard of living would be with all people being at an equal standard. Obviously 7 billion at suburban omaha levels would smoke the planet in an instant, but maybe all of us could spread out and thrive forever at rural arkansas levels?

Spreading out is not the most efficient way for us to live.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on January 28, 2014, 01:37:39 PM
Objectively, how close are we (humans on earth) to overpopulated?

our ability to measure the degree of overpopulation is imprecise, but we can record and evaluate some measurements.

43% of the earth's land surface is altered by human use.
25% of the world's primary production is used my humans.

obviously, much of the earth's land mass is inhabitable and/or marginally usable for humans, and just as obviously, we already concentrate our use in the most advantageous regions.  there's a lot of slop, but it is unambiguous that we use a much greater % than 43% of the land surface's potential to support humans.

where did you get these figures?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on January 28, 2014, 01:42:48 PM
google.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on January 28, 2014, 02:24:40 PM
Seems legit
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 28, 2014, 02:29:27 PM
If you add up the ag, pasture, and urban land use, it comes up to about the 43% sys used. 8.9 billion by 2050  :sdeek:

http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/22/12/article/i1052-5173-22-12-4.htm (http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/22/12/article/i1052-5173-22-12-4.htm)

(http://i.imgur.com/jy0hOlX.gif)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on January 28, 2014, 03:04:50 PM
Seems legit

weird comment.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on January 28, 2014, 03:11:02 PM
If you add up the ag, pasture, and urban land use, it comes up to about the 43% sys used. 8.9 billion by 2050  :sdeek:

http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/22/12/article/i1052-5173-22-12-4.htm (http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/22/12/article/i1052-5173-22-12-4.htm)

(http://i.imgur.com/jy0hOlX.gif)

Looks like it's actually 51%:

http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/22/12/table/i1052-5173-22-12-4-T01.pdf

Although almost half of that total is "Permanent meadows and pastures (mostly uncultivated)".

I think changes in diet could really improve the efficiency of cultivated land. A very high percentage of grain grown (especially in the US) goes to feed livestock:

http://www.earth-policy.org/data_highlights/2011/highlights22
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on January 28, 2014, 03:16:37 PM
You don't say Rusty.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: puniraptor on January 28, 2014, 08:01:08 PM
The Ever-Persistent, Always-Destructive Myth of Overpopulation (http://blog.acton.org/archives/64932-ever-persistent-always-destructive-myth-overpopulation.html)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Mr Bread on January 29, 2014, 11:59:25 AM
The Ever-Persistent, Always-Destructive Myth of Overpopulation (http://blog.acton.org/archives/64932-ever-persistent-always-destructive-myth-overpopulation.html)

I do appreciate that they mock the doomsday overpopulation folks throughout history for their flawed projections, yet they proudly trot out their own that population will peak and them decline.  Myth!?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Mr Bread on January 29, 2014, 12:04:58 PM
Objectively, how close are we (humans on earth) to overpopulated?

Can't really say.

ho hum
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 29, 2014, 01:31:04 PM
Is overpopulation going to become (or already) a liberal vs conservative thing?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on January 29, 2014, 08:02:52 PM
Is overpopulation going to become (or already) a liberal vs conservative thing?

if enough people ever start to care about it, it will.  people now just need to be careful not to advocate a position their party affiliation will force them to abandon.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Stupid Fitz on January 30, 2014, 02:05:02 PM
It's over fellas. I just saw that NASA gif thingy where the giant orange blob has been overtaking us for the last 6 years. It has been an honor friends.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 30, 2014, 04:34:10 PM
Is overpopulation going to become (or already) a liberal vs conservative thing?

if enough people ever start to care about it, it will.  people now just need to be careful not to advocate a position their party affiliation will force them to abandon.

Wait - so are conservatives supposed to believe in this crap, or not?

And wasn't this a big thing back in the 60s? I think they predicted the world would be some sort of zombie apocalypse by the 80s.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 30, 2014, 04:43:47 PM
Is overpopulation going to become (or already) a liberal vs conservative thing?

if enough people ever start to care about it, it will.  people now just need to be careful not to advocate a position their party affiliation will force them to abandon.

Wait - so are conservatives supposed to believe in this crap, or not?

And wasn't this a big thing back in the 60s? I think they predicted the world would be some sort of zombie apocalypse by the 80s.

Well, I certainly believe that the population of the earth will continue to increase until we no longer have ample food and resources to facilitate that growth, but you are free to believe whatever fantasy you like.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on January 30, 2014, 04:48:05 PM
I certainly believe that the population of the earth will continue to increase until we no longer have ample food and resources to facilitate that growth.

a lot of the newer projections are predicting that population growth will abate and either plateau or decline.  don't recall well, but i think around 2050 or so.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on January 30, 2014, 04:49:29 PM
Wait - so are conservatives supposed to believe in this crap, or not?

you'll have to wait until you're told what to think, just like everyone else.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 30, 2014, 04:53:42 PM
I certainly believe that the population of the earth will continue to increase until we no longer have ample food and resources to facilitate that growth.

a lot of the newer projections are predicting that population growth will abate and either plateau or decline.  don't recall well, but i think around 2050 or so.

What is the reasoning for the plateau, though? The projections that I have seen would make the 2050 populations pretty hard to feed without a renewed interest in farming coupled with some pretty radical advances in ag technology.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on January 30, 2014, 04:59:06 PM
What is the reasoning for the plateau, though?

declining birth rates in developing countries.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 30, 2014, 05:11:11 PM
What is the reasoning for the plateau, though?

declining birth rates in developing countries.

That seems like a pretty big leap in logic to me, but I hope they are right.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 30, 2014, 09:22:30 PM
What is the reasoning for the plateau, though?

declining birth rates in developing countries.

That seems like a pretty big leap in logic to me, but I hope they are right.

Declining birth rates in developed countries is a fact. If an country is developing, its a pretty safe bet its birth rate will decline.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 30, 2014, 09:29:58 PM
What is the reasoning for the plateau, though?

declining birth rates in developing countries.

That seems like a pretty big leap in logic to me, but I hope they are right.

Declining birth rates in developed countries is a fact. If an country is developing, its a pretty safe bet its birth rate will decline.

I'm not saying it's not going to happen. I'm just saying that a model that relies on a change in human behavior seems a whole lot less reliable than a model that relies on a proven scientific theory being accurate.

Can you give an example of a developing country that is going to be fully developed in 30 years?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 30, 2014, 09:35:21 PM
What is the reasoning for the plateau, though?

declining birth rates in developing countries.

That seems like a pretty big leap in logic to me, but I hope they are right.

Declining birth rates in developed countries is a fact. If an country is developing, its a pretty safe bet its birth rate will decline.

I'm not saying it's not going to happen. I'm just saying that a model that relies on a change in human behavior seems a whole lot less reliable than a model that relies on a proven scientific theory being accurate.

Can you give an example of a developing country that is going to be fully developed in 30 years?

We'll find out in 30 years, its just a projection like "the models"
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Chingon on January 30, 2014, 09:36:14 PM
Wait - so are conservatives supposed to believe in this crap, or not?

you'll have to wait until you're told what to think, just like everyone else.
just a fantastic response... Goddamn  sys I salute you.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on January 31, 2014, 01:29:32 AM
http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Documentation/pdf/WPP2012_HIGHLIGHTS.pdf
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 31, 2014, 08:12:18 AM
This is what I was thinking of. 1968. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb) :runaway:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/da/The_Population_Bomb.jpg)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 31, 2014, 08:13:59 AM
Wait - so are conservatives supposed to believe in this crap, or not?

you'll have to wait until you're told what to think, just like everyone else.

I'll go ahead and assume that conservatives aren't going to subscribe to this latest knee-jerk hysteria. If some of them do, I'll just call them RINOs.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on February 06, 2014, 02:08:20 PM
coulda gone in the investing thread, i'm putting it here.


http://www.gmo.com/websitecontent/GMO_QtlyLetter_ALL_4Q2013.pdf
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: DeoKat on February 09, 2014, 01:54:36 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5-Mw5_EBk0g (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5-Mw5_EBk0g)

not sorry if luked
:lol:  This 10:10 thing sounds familiar  :jeffy:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 19, 2014, 06:07:50 PM
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1401/1401.8235.pdf
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 19, 2014, 07:40:30 PM
Anyone else find it ironic that the people who constantly say "the science is settled" denigrate their detractors by calling them the "flat earth society".
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on February 19, 2014, 11:16:35 PM
Anyone else find it ironic that the people who constantly say "the science is settled" denigrate their detractors by calling them the "flat earth society".

Yes, and the "denier" thing is hilarious. "How can you deny that my theory is fact!?"
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on February 20, 2014, 01:14:01 PM
The science is settled regarding the greenhouse effect. I agree it is ridiculous to say science is settled on the impact humans have on the greenhouse effect and that anyone saying they know with a high degree of certainty what will happen with the climate (either way) is very foolish.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on February 27, 2014, 12:32:02 PM
http://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on February 27, 2014, 12:57:50 PM
http://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/

These kinds of statements drive me crazy. Zero proof to back it up.

Quote
Increases in the atmospheric concentrations of these gases cause Earth to warm by trapping more of this heat. Human activities - especially the burning of fossil fuels since the start of the Industrial Revolution - have increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations by about 40%, with more than half the increase occurring since 1970.

Then you read an article like this one (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ocean-circulation-may-have-released-co2-at-end-of-ice-ages/) that puts into perspective how tiny the amount of human generated CO2 is relative to the total amount of CO2 in the world. We still have little clue as to how the oceans, winds and currents work.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on February 27, 2014, 01:01:57 PM
Quote
Increases in the atmospheric concentrations of these gases cause Earth to warm by trapping more of this heat. Human activities - especially the burning of fossil fuels since the start of the Industrial Revolution - have increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations by about 40%, with more than half the increase occurring since 1970.

maybe you should read more closely.  there is evidence that supports every point in that statement.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on February 27, 2014, 01:18:30 PM
Quote
Increases in the atmospheric concentrations of these gases cause Earth to warm by trapping more of this heat. Human activities - especially the burning of fossil fuels since the start of the Industrial Revolution - have increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations by about 40%, with more than half the increase occurring since 1970.

maybe you should read more closely.  there is evidence that supports every point in that statement.

I don't see any evidence stated in that article.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on February 27, 2014, 01:25:33 PM
I don't see any evidence stated in that article.

the graphs (all were cited, i believe)?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Dugout DickStone on February 27, 2014, 01:27:59 PM
Looks like an old fashioned who can find evidence in that article-off.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 27, 2014, 02:36:39 PM
This may have already been mentioned, but the global warming hypotheses (the models) projected far greater warming than has actually occurred, and the warming now appears to have leveled off and is possibly even declining (to the extent such "global temperature" can and have been accurately measured), despite spewing more and more CO2 into the atmosphere. Huh.

Aside from the broken models, the best evidence that the klimate krazies are losing the debate is their increasing unwillingness to debate at all, resorting more and more to histrionic name calling and demands for censorship. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/02/26/alarmists-lame-outrage-highlights-strength-of-krauthammers-climate-skepticism/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/02/26/alarmists-lame-outrage-highlights-strength-of-krauthammers-climate-skepticism/)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Dugout DickStone on February 27, 2014, 05:42:29 PM
So is the more extreme weather (hot and cold) just cyclical?  God is angry at us?   God is happy with us and wants us to have a lot of exciting weather?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on February 27, 2014, 05:59:42 PM
So is the more extreme weather (hot and cold) just cyclical?  God is angry at us?   God is happy with us and wants us to have a lot of exciting weather?

It's actually normal weather.  There was nothing super about sandy. It had happened before. Why do you think we got manhattan island so cheap?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: WillieWatanabe on February 27, 2014, 10:03:21 PM
So is the more extreme weather (hot and cold) just cyclical?  God is angry at us?   God is happy with us and wants us to have a lot of exciting weather?

?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on February 27, 2014, 11:43:51 PM
So is the more extreme weather (hot and cold) just cyclical?

?

summer & winter (earth orbiting sun for you conservative dems).  yes, roughly cyclical (6 months).
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 04, 2014, 05:17:54 AM
Insanity. 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/06/bill-gates-climate-scientists-geoengineering
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 04, 2014, 06:07:06 AM
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/25/geoengineering-side-effects-potentially-disastrous-scientists
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on March 04, 2014, 08:47:15 AM
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/25/geoengineering-side-effects-potentially-disastrous-scientists

Unintended consequences are a cornerstone on liberal groupthink politics, and I would expect this to be no different.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on March 04, 2014, 02:43:36 PM
Neat picture. Guess what this is?

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/03/04/article-0-1C05881400000578-796_964x601.jpg)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Dugout DickStone on March 04, 2014, 03:00:04 PM
Neat picture. Guess what this is?

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/03/04/article-0-1C05881400000578-796_964x601.jpg)

Shopped
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on March 04, 2014, 03:49:36 PM
Niagra?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 04, 2014, 10:02:00 PM
Fragglerock?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on March 04, 2014, 10:07:26 PM
It is Niagra, but Fragglerock was a pretty smart guess.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on March 05, 2014, 12:51:34 AM
It's cold = global warming is a myth
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 05, 2014, 05:39:51 AM
Hey now, the IPCC used the scientific term "extremely likely" in regards to CO2 emissions causing "Climate Change".   So the science is "settled".

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 11, 2014, 03:31:08 PM
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/how-climate-change-helped-genghis-khan-scientists-believe-a-sudden-period-of-warmer-weather-allowed-the-mongols-to-invade-with-such-success-9182580.html

Historians and Archeologists believe there was a small but vocal Green Movement within the Mongol hordes who were actually given a brief seat at the leadership table to air their grievances and concerns about the emissions from burning wood and animal flatulence.   Ultimately Khan tabled the discussion, beheaded the Green spokesperson and raided Afghanistan.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: steve dave on March 31, 2014, 08:28:12 AM
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ar5/pr_wg2/140330_pr_wgII_spm_en.pdf
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: EllRobersonisInnocent on March 31, 2014, 10:07:31 AM
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ar5/pr_wg2/140330_pr_wgII_spm_en.pdf

Not good at all.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on March 31, 2014, 10:16:52 AM
Is it ever going to rain in SW KS?  I swear.  Pisses me off. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on March 31, 2014, 11:47:30 AM
Is it ever going to rain in SW KS?  I swear.  Pisses me off.

El Nino coming.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on March 31, 2014, 03:24:11 PM
Is it ever going to rain in SW KS?  I swear.  Pisses me off.

El Nino coming.

 :pray:  (I'm not so sure it is, tho, 50%....)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on March 31, 2014, 03:44:35 PM
i wish the fiscal conservatives had a better understanding of science so they could help make better decisions regarding the economic impact of AGW.  :frown:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on March 31, 2014, 06:14:15 PM
Is it ever going to rain in SW KS?  I swear.  Pisses me off.

El Nino coming.

 :pray:  (I'm not so sure it is, tho, 50%....)

Most forecasts are at 60+% and the latest ones are at 75%.

(http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/ELNINO1-638x371.jpg)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on March 31, 2014, 06:15:31 PM
Is it ever going to rain in SW KS?  I swear.  Pisses me off.

El Nino coming.

 :pray:  (I'm not so sure it is, tho, 50%....)

Most forecasts are at 60+% and the latest ones are at 75%.

(http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/ELNINO1-638x371.jpg)

agenda driven, can't trust any of that nonsense
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on March 31, 2014, 06:22:27 PM
Is it ever going to rain in SW KS?  I swear.  Pisses me off.

El Nino coming.

http://www.producer.com/2014/02/unusual-el-nino-may-deliver-hot-dry-summer-in-west/
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on March 31, 2014, 06:31:25 PM
Is it ever going to rain in SW KS?  I swear.  Pisses me off.

El Nino coming.

 :pray:  (I'm not so sure it is, tho, 50%....)

Most forecasts are at 60+% and the latest ones are at 75%.

(http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/ELNINO1-638x371.jpg)

agenda driven, can't trust any of that nonsense

Actual measurements untouched by a computer model or liberal brain.

(http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/fig011.jpg)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on March 31, 2014, 06:50:35 PM
Is it ever going to rain in SW KS?  I swear.  Pisses me off.

El Nino coming.

 :pray:  (I'm not so sure it is, tho, 50%....)

Most forecasts are at 60+% and the latest ones are at 75%.

(http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/ELNINO1-638x371.jpg)

agenda driven, can't trust any of that nonsense

Actual measurements untouched by a computer model or liberal brain.

(http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/fig011.jpg)

lol, sounds like you're in the pocket of big weather instruments.  who do you think makes those things?  AGENDA DRIVEN HEATHENS THAT'S WHO
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on March 31, 2014, 07:06:35 PM
That's a good point, seven. Those weather instruments are calibrated based upon unproven scientific laws and theories. They cannot be trusted.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: mocat on April 03, 2014, 05:54:05 AM
I absolutely cannot get enough of "pocket of BIG X" posts. They do for me what Steve Dave trying to make Katdaddy heel posts do for stevesie
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: EllRobersonisInnocent on May 06, 2014, 08:59:25 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/06/national-climate-assessment_n_5270541.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/06/national-climate-assessment_n_5270541.html)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 06, 2014, 09:03:10 AM
I always laugh when I see a link to the Huffington Post. I never click on it though.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: EllRobersonisInnocent on May 06, 2014, 09:21:26 AM
http://www.globalchange.gov/ (http://www.globalchange.gov/)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Dugout DickStone on May 06, 2014, 09:39:14 AM
I always laugh when I see a link to the Huffington Post. I never click on it though.

you should, it shows the President all sweaty because of climate change.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 06, 2014, 11:04:52 AM
http://www.globalchange.gov/ (http://www.globalchange.gov/)

Uhggg, cap & trade is going to kill the already anemic GDP. This is horrible. People that think the weather is any worse now than it was 100 years ago are morons.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: EllRobersonisInnocent on May 06, 2014, 11:06:18 AM
http://www.globalchange.gov/ (http://www.globalchange.gov/)

Uhggg, cap & trade is going to kill the already anemic GDP. This is horrible. People that think the weather is any worse now than it was 100 years ago are morons.

You're a rough ridin' idiot.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 06, 2014, 11:26:13 AM
http://www.globalchange.gov/ (http://www.globalchange.gov/)

Uhggg, cap & trade is going to kill the already anemic GDP. This is horrible. People that think the weather is any worse now than it was 100 years ago are morons.

You're a rough ridin' idiot.

 :eye:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: EllRobersonisInnocent on May 06, 2014, 11:27:40 AM
http://www.globalchange.gov/ (http://www.globalchange.gov/)

Uhggg, cap & trade is going to kill the already anemic GDP. This is horrible. People that think the weather is any worse now than it was 100 years ago are morons.

You're a rough ridin' idiot.

 :eye:

 :adios:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on May 06, 2014, 03:59:00 PM
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/05/130510-earth-co2-milestone-400-ppm/ (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/05/130510-earth-co2-milestone-400-ppm/)

Climate Milestone: Earth’s CO2 Level Passes 400 ppm
Greenhouse gas highest since the Pliocene, when sea levels were higher and the Earth was warmer.


(http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/670/cache/atmospheric-co2-reach-400-ppm-carbon-dioxide-climate-change_67022_990x742.jpg)

Two teams of scientists at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii have been measuring carbon dioxide concentration there for decades, and have watched the level inch toward a new milestone.

An instrument near the summit of Mauna Loa in Hawaii has recorded a long-awaited climate milestone: the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere there has exceeded 400 parts per million (ppm) for the first time in 55 years of measurement—and probably more than 3 million years of Earth history.

The last time the concentration of Earth's main greenhouse gas reached this mark, horses and camels lived in the high Arctic. Seas were at least 30 feet higher—at a level that today would inundate major cities around the world.

The planet was about 2 to 3 degrees Celsius (3.6 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer. But the Earth then was in the final stage of a prolonged greenhouse epoch, and CO2 concentrations were on their way down. This time, 400 ppm is a milepost on a far more rapid uphill climb toward an uncertain climate future.

Two independent teams of scientists measure CO2 on Mauna Loa: one from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the other from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. The NOAA team posted word on its web site this morning before dawn Hawaii time: The daily average for May 9 was 400.03 ppm. The Scripps team later confirmed the milestone had been crossed.

The Scripps team is led by Ralph Keeling, son of the late Charles David Keeling, who started the Mauna Loa measurements in 1958. Since then the "Keeling curve," showing the steady climb in CO2 levels caused primarily by burning fossil fuels, has become an icon of climate change.

When the elder Keeling started at Mauna Loa, the CO2 level was at 315 ppm. When he died in June 2005, it was at 382. Why did he keep at it for 47 years, fighting off periodic efforts to cut his funding? His father, he once wrote, had passed onto him a "faith that the world could be made better by devotion to just causes." Now his son and the NOAA team have taken over a measurement that captures, more than any other single number, the extent to which we are changing the world—for better or worse.

Setting the Record Straight

Since late April that number had been hovering above 399 ppm. The Scripps lab opened the vigil to the public by sending out daily tweets (under the handle @Keeling_curve) almost as soon as the data could be downloaded from Mauna Loa, at 5 a.m. Hawaii time. NOAA took to updating its website daily. The two labs' measurements typically agree within .2 ppm. Both measure the amount of CO2 in an air sample by measuring how much infrared radiation it absorbs—the same process by which CO2 in the atmosphere traps heat and warms the whole planet.

(http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-content/photos/000/672/cache/67217_990x742-cb1368135473.jpg)

The measurement NOAA reported for Thursday, May 9, 400.03 ppm, was for a single day. Each data point on the Keeling curve, however, is actually an average of all the measurements made at Mauna Loa over an entire month. The CO2 concentration at Mauna Loa is unlikely to surpass 400 ppm for the whole month of May.

It certainly won't exceed 400 for all of 2013. CO2 peaks in May every year. By June the level will begin falling, as spring kicks into high gear in the Northern Hemisphere, where most of the planet's land is concentrated, and plants draw CO2 out of the atmosphere to fuel their new growth. By November, the CO2 level will be 5 or 6 ppm lower than it is now.

Then the curve will turn upward again: In the winter, plants stop making new carbohydrates but continue to burn the old, respiring CO2 back into the atmosphere.

This seasonal sawtooth—think of it as the breath of northern forests—is the natural part of the Keeling curve. The man-made part is its steady upward climb from one year to the next. Both were discovered at Mauna Loa.

Dave Keeling, as he was known, chose the Hawaiian mountain for his measurements because, at over 11,000 feet and in the middle of the Pacific, it is far from forests or smokestacks that might put a local bias on the data. But even Mauna Loa is not perfectly representative of the whole planet.

NOAA also monitors CO2 at a global network of stations, and the global average consistently lags the Mauna Loa number by a few parts per million—for a simple reason.

"Mauna Loa is higher because most of the fossil fuel CO2 is emitted in the Northern Hemisphere," says NOAA scientist Pieter Tans. It takes about a year, he says, for northern pollution to spread through the Southern Hemisphere.

On the other hand, Mauna Loa lags the Arctic, where CO2 levels are higher. A year ago, NOAA reported that the average of its Arctic measurements had exceeded 400 ppm for the entire month of May, not just for a single day.

The rest of the planet will catch up soon enough. By 2015 or 2016, the whole atmosphere will be averaging 400 ppm for the whole year. What difference will that make?

Back to the Pliocene?

In a way, 400 ppm is an arbitrary milestone, like a .400 batting average in baseball. But the fact that no one has batted .400 since Ted Williams in 1941 still says something important about baseball. The same goes for CO2 in Earth's atmosphere.

Policymakers worldwide have been stymied in their effort to reach a global agreement on reducing fossil fuel emissions. Many scientists argue that the CO2 concentration must be stabilized at 450 ppm to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. Some activists argue for a more ambitious goal of 350 ppm. NOAA has not recorded an average monthly CO2 reading below 350 ppm at Mauna Loa since October 1988.  (See related story: "Obama Pledges U.S. Action on Climate Change, With or Without Congress.")

The last time the concentration of CO2 was as high as 400 ppm was probably in the Pliocene Epoch, between 2.6 and 5.3 million years ago. Until the 20th century, it certainly hadn't exceeded 300 ppm, let alone 400 ppm, for at least 800,000 years. That's how far back scientists have been able to measure CO2 directly in bubbles of ancient air trapped in Antarctic ice cores.

But tens of millions of years ago, CO2 must have been much higher than it is now—there's no other way to explain how warm the Earth was then. In the Eocene, some 50 million years ago, there were alligators and tapirs on Ellesmere Island, which lies off northern Greenland in the Canadian Arctic. They were living in swampy forests like those in the southeastern United States today. CO2 may have been anywhere from two to ten times higher in the Eocene than it is today. (See related: "Hothouse Earth.")

(http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-content/photos/000/672/cache/67219_990x742-cb1368135464.jpg)

Over the next 45 million years, most of it was converted to marine limestone, as CO2-laden rains dissolved the ingredients of limestone out of rocks on land and washed them down rivers to the sea. CO2-belching volcanoes failed to keep pace, so the atmospheric level of the gas slowly declined. Some time during the Pliocene, it probably crossed the 400 ppm mark, as it's doing now-but back then it was on its way down. As a result, at the end of the Pliocene, it became cold enough for continental ice sheets to start forming in the northern hemisphere. The Pliocene, says geologist Maureen Raymo of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, "was the last gasp of warmth before the slow slide into the Ice Ages."

What was Earth like then? In Africa, grasslands were replacing forests and our ancestors were climbing down from the trees. (See related: "The Evolutionary Road.") On Ellesmere, there were no longer alligators and cypress trees, but there were beavers and larch trees and horses and giant camels—and not much ice. The planet was three to four degrees Celsius warmer than it was in the 19th century, before man-made global warming began.

If anything, those numbers understate how different the Pliocene climate was. The tropical sea surface was about as warm as it is now, says Alexey Fedorov of Yale University, but the temperature gradient between the tropics and the poles—which drives the jet streams in the mid-latitudes—was much smaller. The east-west gradient across the Pacific Ocean—which drives the El Niño-La Niña oscillation—was almost nonexistent. In effect, the ocean was locked in a permanent El Niño. Global weather patterns would have been completely different in the Pliocene.

And yet the two main drivers of climate—the level of CO2, and the parameters of Earth's orbit, which determine how much sunlight falls where and at what season—were essentially the same as today. Fedorov calls it the Pliocene Paradox.

Climate scientists are just beginning to crack it, he says. Maybe clouds outside the tropics were darker in the Pliocene, such that they bounced less sunlight back to space. Maybe the warm ocean was stirred by a lot more hurricanes.

Hanging over this academic research is a very nonacademic issue: Could our climate be capable of flipping to a completely different state? "That's the big question—whether CO2 can move us to the Pliocene," says Fedorov.

Rising Seas

Beavers and camels on Ellesmere Island, instead of glaciers, might not be so bad.  But there was a lot less ice in general in the Pliocene. That means there was a lot more water in the ocean, which means sea level was a lot higher—how high exactly, no one knows.

"The estimates have been all over the map," Raymo says. They've ranged from 10 meters (33 feet) to 40 meters (131 feet) higher than today. But even the conservative estimate, were it to recur today, would mean flooding land inhabited by a quarter of the U.S. population.

Raised Pliocene shorelines have been identified all over the world. One is the Orangeburg Scarp, a wave-cut terrace that parallels the Atlantic coast of the U.S. from Florida to Virginia. Typically it lies more than a hundred miles inland. In the Pliocene, the Gulf Stream flowed past that terrace, over what is now the coastal plain.

The question is: How much has the sea receded since then, and how much has the land risen? Raymo has been asking that question on Pliocene shores in the U.S., Africa, Antarctica.

Land can rise, she explains, because it is was once depressed by massive ice sheets and is now rebounding. It can also rise because the underlying mantle is a hot, viscous fluid that pushes it up—by different amounts in different places. In Virginia the Orangeburg Scarp rises around 70 meters (220 feet) but in Florida only 30 meters (100 feet) above the current sea level. Yet in the Pliocene it was right at sea level in both places. What was that sea level?

Raymo's best guess at the moment, to be confirmed by further fieldwork and modeling, is that the last time Earth had 400 ppm of CO2 in its atmosphere, sea level was somewhere between 10 meters (33 feet) and 20 meters (66 feet) higher than today. To raise sea level 10 meters today would require melting most of the ice in Greenland and West Antarctica. To raise it 20 meters would require melting both those ice sheets entirely and some of the giant East Antarctic ice sheet too.

Ice-Age Clues

Could that happen at 400 ppm? Evidence from the past half million years suggests it could, given enough time.

Since the Pliocene, glacial periods, during which ice sheets advanced over northern continents, have alternated with interglacial periods like the one we're in today. The timing has been set by orbital variations, but CO2 has amplified their effect. For the past 800,000 years at least, its atmospheric concentration has marched up and down in step with the ice, but in the opposite direction.

In the last interglacial period, around 120,000 years ago, sea level was as much as 8 meters (26 feet) higher than today, Raymo says. In an earlier interglacial known as Stage 11, around 400,000 years ago, "the evidence is very strong that sea level was at least 9 meters higher than today. The ice sheets didn't stick around."

In Stage 11, the sunlight distribution was a little less favorable to ice sheets than it is now. CO2 peaked then at 290 ppm.

"What everything is telling you is that the system is very sensitive," says Raymo. "The threshold for losing the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets is very close to where we are now. Everything in the geologic record says we're very close. You don't need a lot of CO2—you just need a little bit of warming, and it doesn't matter how you get it."

It took between a thousand and a few thousand years, at the end of Stage 11, to melt all or most of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets. The whole interglacial lasted 30,000 years, nearly three times as long as ours has lasted so far. So the warming had a long time to build up. That's the good news.

But at 400 ppm, CO2 is much higher now, and it's still climbing fast. And even if we could stop that rise tomorrow, the planet's temperature would still climb for centuries.

"For me personally that's the scary thing," says Raymo. "We really don't know what we've already committed ourselves to."




(Just another case of liberal scientists using scientific measurements to validate their liberal talking points, I'm sure.)

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 06, 2014, 05:57:10 PM
Some pretty far flung claims in the NCA.

Sea Level:  Rising since last Ice Age

Participation Variability:  Never constant to begin with

Extreme Weather:  No significant change in occurrence

Sea Ice receding:  Record annual Antarctic ice . . . ice in Arctic and Antarctic is currently at its 3rd highest level since holistic records began.

Climate Models More Accurate than ever:  Reality-they're less accurate than ever.





Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 07, 2014, 11:15:04 AM
Cong. Tim Huelskamp [email protected]  16h
King Obama to strike again with his #pen&phone. Forget the Constitution. Raze the Clean Air Act. Chicago style http://goo.gl/STFllX
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on May 07, 2014, 11:41:21 AM
I think there are a lot of us out there that perhaps don't believe 100% in man made climate change, but are willing to take action anyway (sometimes because it's for a greater economic good).  But I've never heard anyone put forth a solid plan of how to get other countries with whom we compete economically to take identical actions so that we are not even further disadvantaged. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: EllRobersonisInnocent on May 07, 2014, 12:29:37 PM
I think there are a lot of us out there that perhaps don't believe 100% in man made climate change, but are willing to take action anyway (sometimes because it's for a greater economic good).  But I've never heard anyone put forth a solid plan of how to get other countries with whom we compete economically to take identical actions so that we are not even further disadvantaged.

Well you should, because it's 100% true.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 07, 2014, 12:54:38 PM
I think there are a lot of us out there that perhaps don't believe 100% in man made climate change, but are willing to take action anyway (sometimes because it's for a greater economic good).  But I've never heard anyone put forth a solid plan of how to get other countries with whom we compete economically to take identical actions so that we are not even further disadvantaged.

Well you should, because it's 100% true.

There has been no global warming since you were in kindergarten.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on May 07, 2014, 01:01:26 PM
March marked the 38th consecutive March and 349th consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average. The last below-average temperature for March was in 1976 and the last below-average temperature for any month was February 1985.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on May 07, 2014, 01:11:00 PM
Okay, whatever guys, what next?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 07, 2014, 01:15:14 PM
If you plot these numbers from the RSS satellite data, you'll see that the temperature trend is flat since Aug of 1996.

http://data.remss.com/MSU/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TTT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt (http://data.remss.com/MSU/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TTT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt)

Global warming studies and modeling is a $2.6 billion dollar a year government funded industry. Do you think any scientist on the dole is going to try and stop that gravy train?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Dugout DickStone on May 07, 2014, 01:19:34 PM
wait, the gov spends $2.6 billion to pay people to tell them the planet is getting hotter?

link?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on May 07, 2014, 01:24:08 PM
I think there are a lot of us out there that perhaps don't believe 100% in man made climate change, but are willing to take action anyway (sometimes because it's for a greater economic good).  But I've never heard anyone put forth a solid plan of how to get other countries with whom we compete economically to take identical actions so that we are not even further disadvantaged.

Well you should, because it's 100% true.

There has been no global warming since you were in kindergarten.


That's just simply not true.  Just because climate change temperature anomalies don't follow a perfectly linear pattern doesn't mean there isn't a general warming trend.  2012 was the hottest year on record for the United States.


http://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-earth%E2%80%99s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade (http://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-earth%E2%80%99s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade)

(http://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/styles/inline_all/public/YearlySurfaceTempAnom1880-2010.jpg?itok=tCps1K4T)

(http://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/styles/inline_all/public/oceanprofile_tempBalmaseda1960-2008.jpg?itok=JtinYFm8)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: illBisonYourdele on May 07, 2014, 01:46:27 PM
http://www.gotquestions.org/global-warming.html
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 07, 2014, 01:50:10 PM
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-7ScXmwsVmh4/U2YdDk8-OoI/AAAAAAAAjHk/-AGKJTaFvWw/s800/17years9months.png)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 07, 2014, 02:02:06 PM
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/greenhouse_effect_gases.html
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on May 07, 2014, 02:24:14 PM
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-7ScXmwsVmh4/U2YdDk8-OoI/AAAAAAAAjHk/-AGKJTaFvWw/s800/17years9months.png)


Do you even understand why this graph is deceiving?  It's taking the biggest anomaly of a warming trend, and comparing it to the next 15+ years, which are also some of the hottest years on record.  Again, this is how it looks over the course of 100+ years:

(http://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/styles/inline_all/public/YearlySurfaceTempAnom1880-2010.jpg?itok=tCps1K4T)


Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on May 07, 2014, 02:25:31 PM
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-7ScXmwsVmh4/U2YdDk8-OoI/AAAAAAAAjHk/-AGKJTaFvWw/s800/17years9months.png)

lol wut
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on May 07, 2014, 02:26:18 PM
FTR, I don't think beems understands why the graph is deceiving, either.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on May 07, 2014, 02:30:41 PM
FTR, I don't think beems understands why the graph is deceiving, either.

x2
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on May 07, 2014, 02:33:23 PM
FTR, I don't think beems understands why the graph is deceiving, either.


I don't think you're smart enough to understand what I'm talking about.  Perhaps this will help:

Quote
At the time, 1998 was a record high year in both the CRU and the NASA GISS analyses. In fact, it blew away the previous record by .2 degrees C. (That previous record went all the way back to 1997, by the way!)

According to NASA, it was elevated far above the trend line because 1998 was the year of the strongest El Nino of the century. Choosing that year as a starting point is a classic cherry pick and demonstrates why it is necessary to remove chaotic year-to year-variability (aka: weather) by smoothing out the data. Looking at CRU’s graph below, you can see the result of that smoothing in black.

(http://grist.files.wordpress.com/2006/10/cru_2005.gif)

Quote
Clearly 1998 is an anomaly and the trend has not reversed. (Even the apparent leveling at the end is not the real smoothing. The smoothed trend in 2005 depends on all of its surrounding years, including a few years still in the future.) By the way, choosing the CRU analysis is also a cherry pick — NASA has 2005 breaking the 1998 record, though by very little.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on May 07, 2014, 02:40:45 PM
FTR, I don't think beems understands why the graph is deceiving, either.


I don't think you're smart enough to understand what I'm talking about.

Look at where the trendline is and what it is measuring.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on May 07, 2014, 02:43:26 PM
FTR, I don't think beems understands why the graph is deceiving, either.


I don't think you're smart enough to understand what I'm talking about.

Look at where the trendline is and what it is measuring.


It's measuring the highest deviation from the mean.  I changed the language from "highest point" to "largest anomaly," if that makes you feel better.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 07, 2014, 02:57:19 PM
Beems, it's no different than your graph, just a shorter period of time. If you were to plot actual average temperatures from 1850 to now, It would be a straight horizontal line. Anomaly charts are meant to be deceiving to the average person.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Dugout DickStone on May 07, 2014, 03:07:59 PM
If it is crazy hot this summer I will join team global warming.  you hear that god/jesus?  Let's keep it mild down here.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: _33 on May 07, 2014, 03:16:09 PM
Every time it's super hot and I'm having to mow the yard I curse global warming and then every time it's freezing cold and I'm having to shovel the driveway I scoff at its existence.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 07, 2014, 03:19:28 PM
Somebody should take all this talk and use it as a script for the movie "Coal's Not Dead".
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 07, 2014, 03:32:05 PM
Beems, it's no different than your graph, just a shorter period of time. If you were to plot actual average temperatures from 1850 to now, It would be a straight horizontal line. Anomaly charts are meant to be deceiving to the average person.


No, it wouldn't.  The "anomalies" are showing the deviation from historical average temperatures to actual temperatures.  You are a complete fool if you really believe that the industrial age has had no impact on our climate.

I'm not saying it has had no affect, I just don't subscribe to the hysteria that liberals are pushing to raise taxes and redistribute wealth. I'm all for reducing emissions over time as the technology permits, but to push technology that isn't ready is foolish and extremely expensive for very little gain.

Also, until China, India, and the other developing countries are held to the same standard as the US and Europe, anything we do is almost negligible on the global scale. The Government needs incentives for private industry to develop cleaner industrial processes with tax incentives rather than punitive fines and regulations. Those simply kill manufacturing in this country and push them to countries that have no clean air standard.   

(http://www.jennifermarohasy.com//archives/blog_Global%20Mean%20Temp,%201850-2007.jpg)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Dugout DickStone on May 07, 2014, 03:35:40 PM
I see both sides to the argument but, by far, the strongest one is that the Bible says we should not allow environmentalism to turn into idolatry.  I was going to build a golden scientist for my family to worship.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on May 07, 2014, 03:43:45 PM
If we replaced the corporate tax with a carbon tax, would conservatives support it?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: illBisonYourdele on May 07, 2014, 03:44:29 PM
I see both sides to the argument but, by far, the strongest one is that the Bible says we should not allow environmentalism to turn into idolatry.  I was going to build a golden scientist for my family to worship.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on May 07, 2014, 03:47:02 PM
If we replaced the corporate tax with a carbon tax, would conservatives support it?

Can we tax China? 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Chingon on May 07, 2014, 03:54:58 PM
(http://www.jennifermarohasy.com//archives/blog_Global%20Mean%20Temp,%201850-2007.jpg)
omg :lol: omg
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: EllRobersonisInnocent on May 07, 2014, 04:02:05 PM
We're already mumped at this point so it really doesn't even matter anymore.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 07, 2014, 04:03:48 PM
(http://www.jennifermarohasy.com//archives/blog_Global%20Mean%20Temp,%201850-2007.jpg)
omg :lol: omg

I know right, it wouldn't scare anybody.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Chingon on May 07, 2014, 04:06:51 PM
(http://www.jennifermarohasy.com//archives/blog_Global%20Mean%20Temp,%201850-2007.jpg)
omg :lol: omg

I know right, it wouldn't scare anybody.
Do you even know what you are posting?  I mean global warming debate aside, you should know what you are posting.  It could be 100% fact that global warming is 100% a huge hoax, but posting that "plot" makes you look like a rough ridin' imbecile.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: hatingfrancisco on May 07, 2014, 04:28:45 PM
So wait.  You mean to tell me all this hubbub over global warming is about a 1 degree Celsius increase in the past 200 plus years?  GTFOOH.

 :buh-bye:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 07, 2014, 04:35:31 PM
(http://www.jennifermarohasy.com//archives/blog_Global%20Mean%20Temp,%201850-2007.jpg)
omg :lol: omg

I know right, it wouldn't scare anybody.
Do you even know what you are posting?  I mean global warming debate aside, you should know what you are posting.  It could be 100% fact that global warming is 100% a huge hoax, but posting that "plot" makes you look like a rough ridin' imbecile.

I know exactly what it is. It's a simple chart plotting temperature (Celsius) over the span of 157 years. I only posted it to show charts can be manipulated to your advantage depending on the desired outcome and intended audience.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Chingon on May 07, 2014, 04:47:29 PM
(http://www.jennifermarohasy.com//archives/blog_Global%20Mean%20Temp,%201850-2007.jpg)
omg :lol: omg

I know right, it wouldn't scare anybody.
Do you even know what you are posting?  I mean global warming debate aside, you should know what you are posting.  It could be 100% fact that global warming is 100% a huge hoax, but posting that "plot" makes you look like a rough ridin' imbecile.

I know exactly what it is. It's a simple chart plotting temperature (Celsius) over the span of 157 years. I only posted it to show charts can be manipulated to your advantage depending on the desired outcome and intended audience.
:lol: ok :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on May 07, 2014, 04:48:57 PM
If we replaced the corporate tax with a carbon tax, would conservatives support it?

Can we tax China?

I know you're being facetious, but...

We already tax China in the form of tariffs.  In fact, China has invested so much more than the US into solar technology that the US Commerce Department decided to place tariffs on Chinese solar panels in 2013.  China is dominating solar panel production, and now the US is paying for it.  Furthermore, China has signed the Kyoto Protocol and is working with the EU on an economic agreement that would increase China's environmental standards. 

Meanwhile, US politicians debate the reality of climate change.


 :facepalm:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 07, 2014, 04:53:08 PM
I think there are a lot of us out there that perhaps don't believe 100% in man made climate change, but are willing to take action anyway (sometimes because it's for a greater economic good).  But I've never heard anyone put forth a solid plan of how to get other countries with whom we compete economically to take identical actions so that we are not even further disadvantaged.

Well you should, because it's 100% true.

You should probably tell all the climate scientists that, so they can stop spending so much time trying to prove it.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 07, 2014, 04:58:44 PM
Good to see all the It's statistically irrelevant! snobs from the bball board coming over to the pit to opine that slight deviations from average are "anomalies".  Real critical thinking going on in the climate political dogma debate.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on May 07, 2014, 05:10:23 PM
there are people in this country who trust NASA's ability to put a rover on another planet, but not to read and chart temperature data.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 07, 2014, 05:14:52 PM
there are people in this country who trust NASA's ability to put a rover on another planet, but not to read and chart temperature data.

There are people in this country who want to tax smoke based on a scientific theory that says more smoke has an immeasurable effect on temperature.  Not reduce the smoke, just tax it. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on May 07, 2014, 06:38:29 PM
interesting lack of economic understanding as well.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 07, 2014, 08:28:57 PM
interesting lack of economic understanding as well.

 :lol: 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on May 07, 2014, 11:44:49 PM
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-7ScXmwsVmh4/U2YdDk8-OoI/AAAAAAAAjHk/-AGKJTaFvWw/s800/17years9months.png)

what a strange desktop picture
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on May 08, 2014, 10:44:11 AM
Beems, it's no different than your graph, just a shorter period of time. If you were to plot actual average temperatures from 1850 to now, It would be a straight horizontal line. Anomaly charts are meant to be deceiving to the average person.


No, it wouldn't.  The "anomalies" are showing the deviation from historical average temperatures to actual temperatures.  You are a complete fool if you really believe that the industrial age has had no impact on our climate.

I'm not saying it has had no affect, I just don't subscribe to the hysteria that liberals are pushing to raise taxes and redistribute wealth. I'm all for reducing emissions over time as the technology permits, but to push technology that isn't ready is foolish and extremely expensive for very little gain.

Also, until China, India, and the other developing countries are held to the same standard as the US and Europe, anything we do is almost negligible on the global scale. The Government needs incentives for private industry to develop cleaner industrial processes with tax incentives rather than punitive fines and regulations. Those simply kill manufacturing in this country and push them to countries that have no clean air standard.   

(http://www.jennifermarohasy.com//archives/blog_Global%20Mean%20Temp,%201850-2007.jpg)


Did you ever take a statistics course?  The mean is an average for a set of different data points.  Let's use ppg as an example.  If I average 15 ppg, the mean could be plotted as a straight line, but that doesn't mean I scored 15 points every night. Some nights I'll score 8 and some nights I'll score 20.  If I had a slow start to the season and started out averaging 10 ppg, that means the average increased significantly towards the end of the season.  Average global temperature is the same way.  You are seeing higher deviations from the mean over the past 100+ years or so.  The Earth is getting warmer.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: #LIFE on May 08, 2014, 11:02:41 AM
I find this argument rather dumb unless someone can produce some data from the entire history of our planet  :whistle1:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 08, 2014, 11:52:32 AM
Beems, it's no different than your graph, just a shorter period of time. If you were to plot actual average temperatures from 1850 to now, It would be a straight horizontal line. Anomaly charts are meant to be deceiving to the average person.


No, it wouldn't.  The "anomalies" are showing the deviation from historical average temperatures to actual temperatures.  You are a complete fool if you really believe that the industrial age has had no impact on our climate.

I'm not saying it has had no affect, I just don't subscribe to the hysteria that liberals are pushing to raise taxes and redistribute wealth. I'm all for reducing emissions over time as the technology permits, but to push technology that isn't ready is foolish and extremely expensive for very little gain.

Also, until China, India, and the other developing countries are held to the same standard as the US and Europe, anything we do is almost negligible on the global scale. The Government needs incentives for private industry to develop cleaner industrial processes with tax incentives rather than punitive fines and regulations. Those simply kill manufacturing in this country and push them to countries that have no clean air standard.   

(http://www.jennifermarohasy.com//archives/blog_Global%20Mean%20Temp,%201850-2007.jpg)


Did you ever take a statistics course?  The mean is an average for a set of different data points.  Let's use ppg as an example.  If I average 15 ppg, the mean could be plotted as a straight line, but that doesn't mean I scored 15 points every night. Some nights I'll score 8 and some nights I'll score 20.  If I had a slow start to the season and start out averaging 10 ppg, that means the average increased over the course of the season.  Average global temperature is the same way.  You are seeing higher deviations from the mean over the past 100+ years or so.  The Earth is getting warmer.

Why is it so hard for some of you to understand the graph? It's one point on the graph for each year. The mean temp for the entire year derived by adding the maximum and minimum temperatures over a year then dividing the result by two. Elementary stuff here.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on May 08, 2014, 12:26:46 PM
That graph is a complete piece of crap.  The scale of the y axis makes it look like there hasn't been much change, but when you're talking about temperature changes, a fraction of a degree celsius is significant.  The scale should be in fractions, not quantities of five.  Here is a better representation of global temperature changes:


(http://prasoondiwakar.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Temp-Trend.jpg)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 08, 2014, 12:37:21 PM
Nice deletion beems. I knew I should have quoted it ASAP.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on May 08, 2014, 12:40:45 PM
Nice deletion beems. I knew I should have quoted it ASAP.


You're not really finding a true statistical mean when you simply divide the highest and lowest data points by two.  That's more like a median data point.  Regardless, your graph's scale is way off and doesn't give an accurate depiction of the current trend in global temperatures. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: p1k3 on May 08, 2014, 01:04:41 PM
definitely some climate changing going on according to Beem's graph. Not enough for me to care though.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Chingon on May 08, 2014, 01:05:01 PM
FYI for those who care:

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/about/global_temp_timeseries.shtml
http://www.bom.gov.au/web01/ncc/www/cli_chg/timeseries/global_t/0112/global/latest.txt
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 08, 2014, 03:44:59 PM
I find this argument rather dumb unless someone can produce some data from the entire history of our planet  :whistle1:

Here's a temperature anomaly chart that goes back 800,000 years:

(http://i.imgur.com/V2laBnK.png)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 08, 2014, 09:25:37 PM
Again, the left's solution to "climate change" is a tax. Not to curtail greenhouse gas emissions.  They just want to make sure poor people pay more for gas, electricity and food.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: EllRobersonisInnocent on May 08, 2014, 10:00:01 PM
Again, the left's solution to "climate change" is a tax. Not to curtail greenhouse gas emissions.  They just want to make sure poor people pay more for gas, electricity and food.

 :flush:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 08, 2014, 10:01:49 PM
After looking at that chart above, it looks like the last industrial revolution actually started about 20,000 years ago.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 08, 2014, 10:48:04 PM
Some real injustice being done to the word anomaly itt.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 08, 2014, 11:23:20 PM
Some real injustice being done to the word anomaly itt.

Yeah, a half a degree over average is not an anomaly.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 09, 2014, 08:54:50 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/03/moynihan-as-nixon-aide-wa_n_634641.html

Then a few years later, the cover of every major magazine warned of the impending new ice age.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: husserl on May 09, 2014, 09:15:09 AM
My favorite is the graph showing a constant trend of global warming for the last 17 years 9 months. The one labeled No Global Warming For 17 Years 9 Months. It's pretty great.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 09, 2014, 11:25:50 AM
FYI for those who care:

http://www.bom.gov.au/web01/ncc/www/cli_chg/timeseries/global_t/0112/global/latest.txt

Here is a graph made from the link above.

(http://i.imgur.com/rL5CkMA.gif)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 09, 2014, 01:38:38 PM
May 7th, 2014 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

There will be many comments from others, I’m sure, but these are my initial thoughts on the 12 major findings from the latest National Climate Assessment, which proports to tell us how the global climate change anticipated by the IPCC on a global basis will impact us here at home.

The NCA report findings are in bold and italics.

My comments follow each finding.

1. Global climate is changing and this is apparent across the United States in a wide range of observations. The global warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human activities, predominantly the burning of fossil fuels. Many independent lines of evidence confirm that human activities are affecting climate in unprecedented ways. U.S. average temperature has increased by 1.3F to 1.9F since record keeping began in 1895; most of this increase has occurred since about 1970. The most recent decade was the warmest on record. Because human-induced warming is superimposed on a naturally varying climate, rising temperatures are not evenly distributed across the country or over time.

Yes, it has likely warmed, but by an amount which is unknown due to increasing warm biases in thermometer siting, which cannot be removed through “homogenization” adjustments. But there is no way to know whether “The global warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human activities...”, because there is no fingerprint of human-caused versus naturally-caused climate change. To claim the changes are ‘unprecedented’ cannot be demonstrated with reliable data, and are contradicted by some published paleoclimate data which suggests most centuries experience substantial warming or cooling.

2. Some extreme weather and climate events have increased in recent decades, and new and stronger evidence confirms that some of these increases are related to human activities. Changes in extreme weather events are the primary way that most people experience climate change. Human-induced climate change has already increased the number and strength of some of these extreme events. Over the last 50 years, much of the United States has seen an increase in prolonged periods of excessively high temperatures, more heavy downpours, and in some regions, more severe droughts.

There is little or no evidence of increases in severe weather events, except possibly in heavy rainfall events, which would be consistent with modest warming. The statement panders to the publics’ focus on the latest severe weather, and limited memory of even worse events of the past.

3. Human-induced climate change is projected to continue, and it will accelerate significantly if global emissions of heat-trapping gases continue to increase. Heat-trapping gases already in the atmosphere have committed us to a hotter future with more climate-related impacts over the next few decades. The magnitude of climate change beyond the next few decades depends primarily on the amount of heat-trapping gases that human activities emit globally, now and in the future.

This is a predictive statement based upon climate models which have not even been able to hindcast past global temperatures, let alone forecast changes with any level of accuracy.

4. Impacts related to climate change are already evident in many sectors and are expected to become increasingly disruptive across the nation throughout this century and beyond. Climate change is already affecting societies and the natural world. Climate change interacts with other environmental and societal factors in ways that can either moderate or intensify these impacts. The types and magnitudes of impacts vary across the nation and through time. Children, the elderly, the sick, and the poor are especially vulnerable. There is mounting evidence that harm to the nation will increase substantially in the future unless global emissions of heat-trapping gases are greatly reduced.

To the extent climate has changed regionally, there is no way to know how much has been due to human activities. In fact, it might well be human-induced changes have reduced the negative impact of natural changes - there is simply no way to know. You see, those scientists who study the natural world cannot bring themselves to consider the possibility than some human impacts are actually positive. Even if the human-caused impacts are a net negative, they are far outweighed by the benefits to society (especially the poor) of access to abundant, affordable energy. Besides, for the next few decades, there is nothing substantial we can do about the problem, unless killing off a large portion of humanity, and making the rest miserable, is on the table.

5. Climate change threatens human health and well-being in many ways, including through more extreme weather events and wildfire, decreased air quality, and diseases transmitted by insects, food, and water. Climate change is increasing the risks of heat stress, respiratory stress from poor air quality, and the spread of waterborne diseases. Extreme weather events often lead to fatalities and a variety of health impacts on vulnerable populations, including impacts on mental health, such as anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder. Large-scale changes in the environment due to climate change and extreme weather events are increasing the risk of the emergence or reemergence of health threats that are currently uncommon in the United States, such as dengue fever.

Most of this is just simply made up, and ignores the positive benefits of access to affordable energy which far outweigh the negatives. If there has been an increase in anxiety and PTSD, it isn’t from severe weather events...it’s from the relentless fear mongering by politicians and the news media.

6. Infrastructure is being damaged by sea level rise, heavy downpours, and extreme heat; damages are projected to increase with continued climate change. Sea level rise, storm surge, and heavy downpours, in combination with the pattern of continued development in coastal areas, are increasing damage to U.S. infrastructure including roads, buildings, and industrial facilities, and are also increasing risks to ports and coastal military installations. Flooding along rivers, lakes, and in cities following heavy downpours, prolonged rains, and rapid melting of snowpack is exceeding the limits of flood protection infrastructure designed for historical conditions. Extreme heat is damaging transportation infrastructure such as roads, rail lines, and airport runways.

Sea level rise (which was occurring before we started emitting carbon dioxide in substantial amounts) is a very slow process, which would have to be accommodated for anyway. And the weaker global warming turns out to be, the slower sea level rise will be. Infrastructure damage occurs anyway, and is often due to weather events which exceed the design limits. You don’t engineer roads and buildings and seawalls and levees to handle any possible scenario...it would be too expensive. A large part of our flooding problems are due to the replacement of natural ground with paved surfaces, which enhances runoff into rivers. This has nothing to do with climate change.

7. Water quality and water supply reliability are jeopardized by climate change in a variety of ways that affect ecosystems and livelihoods. Surface and groundwater supplies in some regions are already stressed by increasing demand for water as well as declining runoff and groundwater recharge. In some regions, particularly the southern part of the country and the Caribbean and Pacific Islands, climate change is increasing the likelihood of water shortages and competition for water among its many uses. Water quality is diminishing in many areas, particularly due to increasing sediment and contaminant concentrations after heavy downpours.

This is largely a non sequitur. The problems described exist even without human-caused climate change...to the extent that substantial human influences exist.

8. Climate disruptions to agriculture have been increasing and are projected to become more severe over this century. Some areas are already experiencing climate-related disruptions, particularly due to extreme weather events. While some U.S. regions and some types of agricultural production will be relatively resilient to climate change over the next 25 years or so, others will increasingly suffer from stresses due to extreme heat, drought, disease, and heavy downpours. From mid-century on, climate change is projected to have more negative impacts on crops and livestock across the country, a trend that could diminish the security of our food supply.

I work with the people involved in tracking and long-term prediction of agricultural yields, both domestically and internationally. They see no sign of climate change impacts on agricultural yields. There are always natural fluctuations, but if there is any negative human-induced impact, it is swamped by the increasing yields due to improved agricultural practices, seed varieties, and very likely CO2 fertilization.

9. Climate change poses particular threats to Indigenous Peoples’ health, well-being, and ways of life. Chronic stresses such as extreme poverty are being exacerbated by climate change impacts such as reduced access to traditional foods, decreased water quality, and increasing exposure to health and safety hazards. In parts of Alaska, Louisiana, the Pacific Islands, and other coastal locations, climate change impacts (through erosion and inundation) are so severe that some communities are already relocating from historical homelands to which their traditions and cultural identities are tied. Particularly in Alaska, the rapid pace of temperature rise, ice and snow melt, and permafrost thaw are significantly affecting critical infrastructure and traditional livelihoods.

O..M..G. So lets help poor people by increasing the cost of everything by making the energy on which everything depends even more expensive? The people who write this drivel are so clueless they should not be allowed to influence the decision making process.

10. Ecosystems and the benefits they provide to society are being affected by climate change. The capacity of ecosystems to buffer the impacts of extreme events like fires, floods, and severe storms is being overwhelmed. Climate change impacts on biodiversity are already being observed in alteration of the timing of critical biological events such as spring bud burst and substantial range shifts of many species. In the longer term, there is an increased risk of species extinction. These changes have social, cultural, and economic effects. Events such as droughts, floods, wildfires, and pest outbreaks associated with climate change (for example, bark beetles in the West) are already disrupting ecosystems. These changes limit the capacity of ecosystems, such as forests, barrier beaches, and wetlands, to continue to play important roles in reducing the impacts of these extreme events on infrastructure, human communities, and other valued resources.

Modest warming and more CO2 available to the biosphere is already having positive impacts, such as the recent greening of the planet. Trying to turn the most obvious positive outcomes into negatives leads to logical contortions which would be funny if they weren’t so serious. Nature changes anyway, folks, as evidenced by glaciers in Europe and North America receding and uncovering ancient tree stumps. Ecosystems are being “overwhelmed”? I don’t think so. Ecosystems are not static.

11. Ocean waters are becoming warmer and more acidic, broadly affecting ocean circulation, chemistry, ecosystems, and marine life. More acidic waters inhibit the formation of shells, skeletons, and coral reefs. Warmer waters harm coral reefs and alter the distribution, abundance, and productivity of many marine species. The rising temperature and changing chemistry of ocean water combine with other stresses, such as overfishing and coastal and marine pollution, to alter marine-based food production and harm fishing communities.

There is increasing evidence that ocean acidification has been greatly overblown. I’m not an expert, but from what I’ve read lately, more realistic lab experiments with adding CO2 to sea water shows that the natural buffering capacity of sea water limits pH changes, and the increasing CO2 is actually good for life in the ocean...just as it is on land (because CO2 is also necessary for the start of the food chain in the ocean). I think the jury is still out on this issue...but, of course, we can’t expect government reports, which are written to facilitate desired policy changes, to provide balance on such things.

12. Planning for adaptation (to address and prepare for impacts) and mitigation (to reduce future climate change, for example by cutting emissions) is becoming more widespread, but current implementation efforts are insufficient to avoid increasingly negative social, environmental, and economic consequences. Actions to reduce emissions, increase carbon uptake, adapt to a changing climate, and increase resilience to impacts that are unavoidable can improve public health, economic development, ecosystem protection, and quality of life.

Translation: We need more government regulation and taxation.

THE BOTTOM LINE:

Follow the money, folks. This glitzy, 840-page report took a lot of your tax dollars to generate, and involved only those “experts” who are willing to play the game. It is difficult to answer in its entirety because government has billions of dollars to invest in this, while most of us who try to bring some sanity to the issue must do it in our spare time, because we aren’t paid to do it. It is nowhere near balanced regarding science, costs-versus-benefits, or implied policy outcomes. Like the previous two National Assessment reports, it takes global climate models which cannot even hindcast what has happened before, which over-forecast global average warming, which are known to have essentially zero skill for regional (e.g. U.S.) predictions, and uses them anyway to instill fear into the masses, so that we might be led to safety by politicians.

Caveat emptor.

(Oh, and if you are tempted to say, “What about all the Big Oil money involved in our need for energy?” Well, that money was willingly given to Big Oil by all of us for a useful product that makes our lives better. Government money is taken from you (I’m not anti-taxation, just pointing out a distinction) that they then use to perpetuate the perceived need for more government control. If “Big Oil” could make a profit by becoming
“Big Solar”, or “Big Wind”, they would.)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 09, 2014, 02:13:13 PM
Guys, if the Wildcats average 74.2 points per game this season, is every game they don't score that number an anomaly?  If every game is an anomaly,  what is normal? #beemscience
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: SPEmaw on May 10, 2014, 12:14:57 AM
I'm not an alarmist by any means, but the Earth is indeed warming.  Climate change is a real thing.  14 of the last 15 years have been the hottest average global temperatures on record.  The chance that that is just a coincidence is less than 1 divided by all of the stars in the universe.


 :nerd:

Not surprised that this squawk thinks this way.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 10, 2014, 12:45:48 PM
Hey guys/gals, climate change is a real thing:


(http://www.planetaryvisions.com/thumbs_new/2226_ban.jpg)

(http://www.iceagenow.com/Europe_During_Last_Ice_Age.gif)

During the last Ice Age, sea level was nearly 400 Feet lower than it is today.  Shocker of all shocks, in glacial retraction (still going on) sea level rises.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on May 10, 2014, 03:09:51 PM
i wonder if those scientists ever considered some the points raised by the dumbass conservatives on a kstate sports blog. i bet they did.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 10, 2014, 09:42:17 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2597907/Green-smear-campaign-against-professor-dared-disown-sexed-UN-climate-dossier.html
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Cartierfor3 on May 10, 2014, 10:06:55 PM
I'm just one guy, and if the world is getting warmer, there's nothing I can do about it. Best to just not get too worked up one way or another.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on May 11, 2014, 02:01:22 AM
I'm just one guy, and if the world is getting warmer, there's nothing I can do about it. Best to just not get too worked up one way or another.

bud  :thumbs:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: p1k3 on May 11, 2014, 02:32:22 AM
I'm just one guy, and if the world is getting warmer, there's nothing I can do about it. Best to just not get too worked up one way or another.

bud  :thumbs:

yeah this is my take
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 11, 2014, 02:35:55 PM
FYI for those who care:

http://www.bom.gov.au/web01/ncc/www/cli_chg/timeseries/global_t/0112/global/latest.txt

Here is a graph made from the link above.

(http://i.imgur.com/rL5CkMA.gif)

Looks like no warming anomalies in 17 years.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on May 12, 2014, 09:46:12 AM
I'm just one guy, and if the world is getting warmer, there's nothing I can do about it. Best to just not get too worked up one way or another.

I believe this, but I will throw in if I can somehow profit then that's okay, too.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: LickNeckey on May 13, 2014, 11:17:42 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/13/science/earth/collapse-of-parts-of-west-antarctica-ice-sheet-has-begun-scientists-say.html?smid=fb-share&_r=1

somebody set these "libtards straight"

http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/environment/climate-change/managing-climate-change-risks/carbon-asset-risk?parentId=fbec4340-be1d-41ff-b55b-988cc9e44881
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 13, 2014, 12:29:41 PM
Did they ever get those "scientists" out of that unusual super summer ice freeze down there in the antarctic, where it should have been open ocean but instead was super thick ice that even the ice breakers couldn't get in?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 16, 2014, 01:43:44 PM
Hey look! Actual real world science is being covered up by the alarmists. Color me surprised.  :dubious:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2630023/Study-suggesting-global-warming-exaggerated-rejected-publication-respected-journal-helpful-climate-cause-claims-professor.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2630023/Study-suggesting-global-warming-exaggerated-rejected-publication-respected-journal-helpful-climate-cause-claims-professor.html)

Quote
Professor Lennart Bengtsson, a research fellow at the University of Reading and one of five authors of the study, said he suspected that intolerance of dissenting views on climate science was preventing his paper from being published.

‘The problem we now have in the climate community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of a climate activist,’ he told the Times.

Prof Bengtsson’s paper suggests that the Earth’s environment might be much less sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously thought.

If he and his four co-authors are correct, it would mean that carbon dioxide and other pollutants are having a far less severe impact on climate than green activists would have us believe.

The research, if made public, would be a huge challenge to the finding of the UN’s Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that the global average temperature would rise by up to 4.5C if greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were allowed to double.

The paper suggested that the climate might be less sensitive to greenhouse gases than had been claimed by the IPCC in its report last September, and recommended that more work be carried out ‘to reduce the underlying uncertainty’.

The five contributing scientists submitted the paper to Environmental Research Letters – a highly regarded journal – but were told it had been rejected. A scientist asked by the journal to assess the paper under the peer review process reportedly wrote: ‘It is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of “errors” and worse from the climate sceptics media side.’

Prof Bengtsson, 79, said it was ‘utterly unacceptable’ to advise against publishing a paper on the political grounds.

He said: ‘It is an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views. The reality hasn’t been keeping up with the [computer] models.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Jabeez on May 16, 2014, 02:47:41 PM
Hey look! Actual real world science is being covered up by the alarmists. Color me surprised.  :dubious:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2630023/Study-suggesting-global-warming-exaggerated-rejected-publication-respected-journal-helpful-climate-cause-claims-professor.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2630023/Study-suggesting-global-warming-exaggerated-rejected-publication-respected-journal-helpful-climate-cause-claims-professor.html)

Quote
Professor Lennart Bengtsson, a research fellow at the University of Reading and one of five authors of the study, said he suspected that intolerance of dissenting views on climate science was preventing his paper from being published.

‘The problem we now have in the climate community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of a climate activist,’ he told the Times.

Prof Bengtsson’s paper suggests that the Earth’s environment might be much less sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously thought.

If he and his four co-authors are correct, it would mean that carbon dioxide and other pollutants are having a far less severe impact on climate than green activists would have us believe.

The research, if made public, would be a huge challenge to the finding of the UN’s Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that the global average temperature would rise by up to 4.5C if greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were allowed to double.

The paper suggested that the climate might be less sensitive to greenhouse gases than had been claimed by the IPCC in its report last September, and recommended that more work be carried out ‘to reduce the underlying uncertainty’.

The five contributing scientists submitted the paper to Environmental Research Letters – a highly regarded journal – but were told it had been rejected. A scientist asked by the journal to assess the paper under the peer review process reportedly wrote: ‘It is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of “errors” and worse from the climate sceptics media side.’

Prof Bengtsson, 79, said it was ‘utterly unacceptable’ to advise against publishing a paper on the political grounds.

He said: ‘It is an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views. The reality hasn’t been keeping up with the [computer] models.


Yeah,  so this paper was rejected by his peers because it was over-simplified. Sounds like the submitted paper was more politically motivated than  peers who rejected it. 

Also, so one paper is rejected therefore the other thousands of papers that were approved and peer reviewed are irrelevant?

Those damn libtard scientists are always shutting down the real science in the name of big science!
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 16, 2014, 03:09:13 PM
Yeah, he's just some wacko right wing denier. The science is settled!

He is sure to have more experience and knowledge than those that turned it down.

Quote
Lennart Bengtsson (born 5 July 1935, Trollhättan), is a Swedish meteorologist. His research interests include climate sensitivity, extreme events, climate variability and climate predictability. [1]

He was Head of Research at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts from 1975 to 1981 and then Director until 1990; then director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg. He is now a Senior Research Fellow at the Environmental Systems Science Centre in the University of Reading.

In 2005 he was awarded the René Descartes Prize for Collaborative Research[2] together with Prof. Ola M. Johannessen and Dr. Leonid Bobylev from the Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Centre in Norway and Russia for the Climate and Environmental Change in the Arctic project. In 2006 he was awarded the 51st IMO prize of the World Meteorological Organization for pioneering research in numerical weather prediction.[3]

In May 2014, Bengtsson announced that he was joining the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a climate change skeptics organization. A week later Bengtsson reversed his decision to join the GWPF citing "an enormous group pressure" that "I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years." and " I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on May 16, 2014, 03:10:12 PM
Quote
COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR(S)
The manuscript uses a simple energy budget equation (as employed e.g. by Gregory et al 2004, 2008, Otto et al 2013) to test the consistency between three recent "assessments" of radiative forcing and climate sensitivity (not really equilibrium climate sensitivity in the case of observational studies).

The study finds significant differences between the three assessments and also finds that the independent assessments of forcing and climate sensitivity within AR5 are not consistent if one assumes the simple energy balance model to be a perfect description of reality.

The overall innovation of the manuscript is very low, as the calculations made to compare the three studies are already available within each of the sources, most directly in Otto et al.

The finding of differences between the three "assessments" and within the assessments (AR5), when assuming the energy balance model to be right, and compared to the CMIP5 models are reported as apparent inconsistencies.

The paper does not make any significant attempt at explaining or understanding the differences, it rather puts out a very simplistic negative message giving at least the implicit impression of "errors" being made within and between these assessments, e.g. by emphasising the overlap of authors on two of the three studies.

What a paper with this message should have done instead is recognising and explaining a series of "reasons" and "causes" for the differences.

- The comparison between observation based estimates of ECS and TCR (which would have been far more interesting and less impacted by the large uncertainty about the heat content change relative to the 19th century) and model based estimates is comparing apples and pears, as the models are calculating true global means, whereas the observations have limited coverage. This difference has been emphasised in a recent contribution by Kevin Cowtan, 2013.
- The differences in the forcing estimates used e.g. between Otto et al 2013 and AR5 are not some "unexplainable change of mind of the same group of authors" but are following different tow different logics, and also two different (if only slightly) methods of compiling aggregate uncertainties relative to the reference period, i.e. the Otto et al forcing is deliberately "adjusted" to represent more closely recent observations, whereas AR5 has not put so much weight on these satellite observations, due to still persisting potential problems with this new technology
- The IPCC process itself explains potential inconsistencies under the strict requirement of a simplistic energy balance: The different estimates for temperature, heat uptake, forcing, and ECS and TCR are made within different working groups, at slightly different points in time, and with potentially different emphasis on different data sources. The IPCC estimates of different quantities are not based on single data sources, nor on a fixed set of models, but by construction are expert based assessments based on a multitude of sources. Hence the expectation that all expert estimates are completely consistent within a simple energy balance model is unfunded from the beginning.
- Even more so, as the very application of the Kappa model (the simple energy balance model employed in this work, in Otto et al, and Gregory 2004) comes with a note of caution, as it is well known (and stated in all these studies) to underestimate ECS, compared to a model with more time-scales and potential non-linearities (hence again no wonder that CMIP5 doesn't fit the same ranges)
Summarising, the simplistic comparison of ranges from AR4, AR5, and Otto et al, combined with the statement they they are inconsistent is less then helpful, actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of "errors" and worse from the climate sceptics media side.
One cannot and should not simply interpret the IPCCs ranges for AR4 or 5 as confidence intervals or pdfs and hence they are not directly comparable to observation based intervals (as e.g. in Otto et al).

In the same way that one cannot expect a nice fit between observational studies and the CMIP5 models.

A careful, constructive, and comprehensive analysis of what these ranges mean, and how they come to be different, and what underlying problems these comparisons bring would indeed be a valuable contribution to the debate.

I have rated the potential impact in the field as high, but I have to emphasise that this would be a strongly negative impact, as it does not clarify anything but puts up the (false) claim of some big inconsistency, where no consistency was to be expected in the first place.
And I can't see an honest attempt of constructive explanation in the manuscript.

Thus I would strongly advise rejecting the manuscript in its current form.

 

http://ioppublishing.org/newsDetails/statement-from-iop-publishing-on-story-in-the-times
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Jabeez on May 16, 2014, 03:26:19 PM
Quote
COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR(S)
The manuscript uses a simple energy budget equation (as employed e.g. by Gregory et al 2004, 2008, Otto et al 2013) to test the consistency between three recent "assessments" of radiative forcing and climate sensitivity (not really equilibrium climate sensitivity in the case of observational studies).

The study finds significant differences between the three assessments and also finds that the independent assessments of forcing and climate sensitivity within AR5 are not consistent if one assumes the simple energy balance model to be a perfect description of reality.

The overall innovation of the manuscript is very low, as the calculations made to compare the three studies are already available within each of the sources, most directly in Otto et al.

The finding of differences between the three "assessments" and within the assessments (AR5), when assuming the energy balance model to be right, and compared to the CMIP5 models are reported as apparent inconsistencies.

The paper does not make any significant attempt at explaining or understanding the differences, it rather puts out a very simplistic negative message giving at least the implicit impression of "errors" being made within and between these assessments, e.g. by emphasising the overlap of authors on two of the three studies.

What a paper with this message should have done instead is recognising and explaining a series of "reasons" and "causes" for the differences.

- The comparison between observation based estimates of ECS and TCR (which would have been far more interesting and less impacted by the large uncertainty about the heat content change relative to the 19th century) and model based estimates is comparing apples and pears, as the models are calculating true global means, whereas the observations have limited coverage. This difference has been emphasised in a recent contribution by Kevin Cowtan, 2013.
- The differences in the forcing estimates used e.g. between Otto et al 2013 and AR5 are not some "unexplainable change of mind of the same group of authors" but are following different tow different logics, and also two different (if only slightly) methods of compiling aggregate uncertainties relative to the reference period, i.e. the Otto et al forcing is deliberately "adjusted" to represent more closely recent observations, whereas AR5 has not put so much weight on these satellite observations, due to still persisting potential problems with this new technology
- The IPCC process itself explains potential inconsistencies under the strict requirement of a simplistic energy balance: The different estimates for temperature, heat uptake, forcing, and ECS and TCR are made within different working groups, at slightly different points in time, and with potentially different emphasis on different data sources. The IPCC estimates of different quantities are not based on single data sources, nor on a fixed set of models, but by construction are expert based assessments based on a multitude of sources. Hence the expectation that all expert estimates are completely consistent within a simple energy balance model is unfunded from the beginning.
- Even more so, as the very application of the Kappa model (the simple energy balance model employed in this work, in Otto et al, and Gregory 2004) comes with a note of caution, as it is well known (and stated in all these studies) to underestimate ECS, compared to a model with more time-scales and potential non-linearities (hence again no wonder that CMIP5 doesn't fit the same ranges)
Summarising, the simplistic comparison of ranges from AR4, AR5, and Otto et al, combined with the statement they they are inconsistent is less then helpful, actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of "errors" and worse from the climate sceptics media side.
One cannot and should not simply interpret the IPCCs ranges for AR4 or 5 as confidence intervals or pdfs and hence they are not directly comparable to observation based intervals (as e.g. in Otto et al).

In the same way that one cannot expect a nice fit between observational studies and the CMIP5 models.

A careful, constructive, and comprehensive analysis of what these ranges mean, and how they come to be different, and what underlying problems these comparisons bring would indeed be a valuable contribution to the debate.

I have rated the potential impact in the field as high, but I have to emphasise that this would be a strongly negative impact, as it does not clarify anything but puts up the (false) claim of some big inconsistency, where no consistency was to be expected in the first place.
And I can't see an honest attempt of constructive explanation in the manuscript.

Thus I would strongly advise rejecting the manuscript in its current form.

 

http://ioppublishing.org/newsDetails/statement-from-iop-publishing-on-story-in-the-times

^This:
 flawed research and findings.  Could have worked on redoing some of his work (why it's peer reviewed, rather than rushed to the public) instead, he goes bitching to the media.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 16, 2014, 03:48:58 PM
Quote
COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR(S)
The manuscript uses a simple energy budget equation (as employed e.g. by Gregory et al 2004, 2008, Otto et al 2013) to test the consistency between three recent "assessments" of radiative forcing and climate sensitivity (not really equilibrium climate sensitivity in the case of observational studies).

The study finds significant differences between the three assessments and also finds that the independent assessments of forcing and climate sensitivity within AR5 are not consistent if one assumes the simple energy balance model to be a perfect description of reality.

The overall innovation of the manuscript is very low, as the calculations made to compare the three studies are already available within each of the sources, most directly in Otto et al.

The finding of differences between the three "assessments" and within the assessments (AR5), when assuming the energy balance model to be right, and compared to the CMIP5 models are reported as apparent inconsistencies.

The paper does not make any significant attempt at explaining or understanding the differences, it rather puts out a very simplistic negative message giving at least the implicit impression of "errors" being made within and between these assessments, e.g. by emphasising the overlap of authors on two of the three studies.

What a paper with this message should have done instead is recognising and explaining a series of "reasons" and "causes" for the differences.

- The comparison between observation based estimates of ECS and TCR (which would have been far more interesting and less impacted by the large uncertainty about the heat content change relative to the 19th century) and model based estimates is comparing apples and pears, as the models are calculating true global means, whereas the observations have limited coverage. This difference has been emphasised in a recent contribution by Kevin Cowtan, 2013.
- The differences in the forcing estimates used e.g. between Otto et al 2013 and AR5 are not some "unexplainable change of mind of the same group of authors" but are following different tow different logics, and also two different (if only slightly) methods of compiling aggregate uncertainties relative to the reference period, i.e. the Otto et al forcing is deliberately "adjusted" to represent more closely recent observations, whereas AR5 has not put so much weight on these satellite observations, due to still persisting potential problems with this new technology
- The IPCC process itself explains potential inconsistencies under the strict requirement of a simplistic energy balance: The different estimates for temperature, heat uptake, forcing, and ECS and TCR are made within different working groups, at slightly different points in time, and with potentially different emphasis on different data sources. The IPCC estimates of different quantities are not based on single data sources, nor on a fixed set of models, but by construction are expert based assessments based on a multitude of sources. Hence the expectation that all expert estimates are completely consistent within a simple energy balance model is unfunded from the beginning.
- Even more so, as the very application of the Kappa model (the simple energy balance model employed in this work, in Otto et al, and Gregory 2004) comes with a note of caution, as it is well known (and stated in all these studies) to underestimate ECS, compared to a model with more time-scales and potential non-linearities (hence again no wonder that CMIP5 doesn't fit the same ranges)
Summarising, the simplistic comparison of ranges from AR4, AR5, and Otto et al, combined with the statement they they are inconsistent is less then helpful, actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of "errors" and worse from the climate sceptics media side.
One cannot and should not simply interpret the IPCCs ranges for AR4 or 5 as confidence intervals or pdfs and hence they are not directly comparable to observation based intervals (as e.g. in Otto et al).

In the same way that one cannot expect a nice fit between observational studies and the CMIP5 models.

A careful, constructive, and comprehensive analysis of what these ranges mean, and how they come to be different, and what underlying problems these comparisons bring would indeed be a valuable contribution to the debate.

I have rated the potential impact in the field as high, but I have to emphasise that this would be a strongly negative impact, as it does not clarify anything but puts up the (false) claim of some big inconsistency, where no consistency was to be expected in the first place.
And I can't see an honest attempt of constructive explanation in the manuscript.

Thus I would strongly advise rejecting the manuscript in its current form.

 

http://ioppublishing.org/newsDetails/statement-from-iop-publishing-on-story-in-the-times

^This:
 flawed research and findings.  Could have worked on redoing some of his work (why it's peer reviewed, rather than rushed to the public) instead, he goes bitching to the media.

It will be interesting to read the rest of the referee decisions, if they publish them.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 16, 2014, 07:14:11 PM
It's funny that michigancat and jeebaz trust the scientists who can't the models right more than the guy who's study is corroborated by the climate they purport to study.

When you're hard line politically,  you're forced to take indefensible positions. Must suck
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on May 16, 2014, 07:24:53 PM
It's funny that michigancat and jeebaz trust the scientists who can't the models right more than the guy who's study is corroborated by the climate they purport to study.

When you're hard line politically,  you're forced to take indefensible positions. Must suck
a fun thing about the weekends is you don't have to wait till 10 to see FSD get drunk and delusional.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 16, 2014, 08:29:45 PM
It's funny that michigancat and jeebaz trust the scientists who can't the models right more than the guy who's study is corroborated by the climate they purport to study.

When you're hard line politically,  you're forced to take indefensible positions. Must suck
a fun thing about the weekends is you don't have to wait till 10 to see FSD get drunk and delusional.

It appears I get the privilege of my own ongoing peer analysis.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Dugout DickStone on May 16, 2014, 10:48:20 PM
It's funny that michigancat and jeebaz trust the scientists who can't the models right more than the guy who's study is corroborated by the climate they purport to study.

When you're hard line politically,  you're forced to take indefensible positions. Must suck
a fun thing about the weekends is you don't have to wait till 10 to see FSD get drunk and delusional.

It appears I get the privilege of my own ongoing peer analysis.

How would retro fitting all of our power plants to burn wood effect this?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 18, 2014, 12:53:36 PM
How is Big Energy going to be able to compete with the climate scare mongers and their war chest?

$2.6 billion in Government Climate research funding, primarily driven by the "science is settled" and the "orthodoxy of global climate change discussion" pseudo-scientists. 

Nearly $1 billion in assets for the Rockefeller Foundation, over $6 Billion in assets for the Nature Conservancy and a litany of so called non-profit entities and law firms showing hundreds of millions of dollars in assets in IRS filings.

Global Climate scare mongers are a big business . . . with the Gov't spewing forth climate change research grants in the form of billions, what government cheese scientist wouldn't desire to pull up to that trough?


Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Kat Kid on May 18, 2014, 01:06:30 PM
How is Big Energy going to be able to compete with the climate scare mongers and their war chest?

$2.6 billion in Government Climate research funding, primarily driven by the "science is settled" and the "orthodoxy of global climate change discussion" pseudo-scientists. 

Nearly $1 billion in assets for the Rockefeller Foundation, over $6 Billion in assets for the Nature Conservancy and a litany of so called non-profit entities and law firms showing hundreds of millions of dollars in assets in IRS filings.

Global Climate scare mongers are a big business . . . with the Gov't spewing forth climate change research grants in the form of billions, what government cheese scientist wouldn't desire to pull up to that trough?

Yep.  Definitely more money backing Big Global Climate.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 18, 2014, 01:56:14 PM
Power of the pen that draws from a budget that's equal to 7 or 8 Exxon's. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 19, 2014, 11:43:10 AM
Cong. Tim Huelskamp [email protected]  May 16
#PeerReview 2 #PeerPressure: Journal rejects climate sceptic’s research bc it was harmful to the ‘cause’ #JunkScience http://goo.gl/GE6YvV
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on May 19, 2014, 11:51:20 AM
every dax post is like a case study in how the human cognitive process can go awry.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: puniraptor on May 19, 2014, 03:46:15 PM
:lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 19, 2014, 04:06:07 PM
With every post by some, like sys, comes a further study in incapacity on educational level. 

$2.6 Billion in Federal Funding for Climate Research per year.  Almost every dime of it goes to Warmist Scientists.

The National Resource Defense Council has more assets listed on their IRS forms than the American Petroleum Institute.

The Rockefeller Foundation (Nearly $800 million in assets) has pumped millions into campaigns to thwart energy development via other so called non profits.

The Nature Conservancy lists $6 billion in assets.  (a non profit)

Overall non-profit environmental entities in the United States are a $13 to $14 billion dollar per year enterprise.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, around $150 million in assets vs the Gordon and Betty Moore foundation. $5.2 billion in assets.



 



Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Jabeez on May 19, 2014, 04:20:34 PM
With every post by some, like sys, comes a further study in incapacity on educational level. 

$2.6 Billion in Federal Funding for Climate Research per year.  Almost every dime of it goes to Warmist Scientists.

The National Resource Defense Council has more assets listed on their IRS forms than the American Petroleum Institute.

The Rockefeller Foundation (Nearly $800 million in assets) has pumped millions into campaigns to thwart energy development via other so called non profits.

The Nature Conservancy lists $6 billion in assets.  (a non profit)

Overall non-profit environmental entities in the United States are a $13 to $14 billion dollar per year enterprise.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, around $150 million in assets vs the Gordon and Betty Moore foundation. $5.2 billion in assets.



 

This has to do with the climate change how?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 19, 2014, 05:06:53 PM
With every post by some, like sys, comes a further study in incapacity on educational level. 

$2.6 Billion in Federal Funding for Climate Research per year.  Almost every dime of it goes to Warmist Scientists.

The National Resource Defense Council has more assets listed on their IRS forms than the American Petroleum Institute.

The Rockefeller Foundation (Nearly $800 million in assets) has pumped millions into campaigns to thwart energy development via other so called non profits.

The Nature Conservancy lists $6 billion in assets.  (a non profit)

Overall non-profit environmental entities in the United States are a $13 to $14 billion dollar per year enterprise.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, around $150 million in assets vs the Gordon and Betty Moore foundation. $5.2 billion in assets.



 

This has to do with the climate change how?

Follow the tax money.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Jabeez on May 19, 2014, 05:16:01 PM
With every post by some, like sys, comes a further study in incapacity on educational level. 

$2.6 Billion in Federal Funding for Climate Research per year.  Almost every dime of it goes to Warmist Scientists.

The National Resource Defense Council has more assets listed on their IRS forms than the American Petroleum Institute.

The Rockefeller Foundation (Nearly $800 million in assets) has pumped millions into campaigns to thwart energy development via other so called non profits.

The Nature Conservancy lists $6 billion in assets.  (a non profit)

Overall non-profit environmental entities in the United States are a $13 to $14 billion dollar per year enterprise.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, around $150 million in assets vs the Gordon and Betty Moore foundation. $5.2 billion in assets.



 

This has to do with the climate change how?

Follow the tax money.

Ohhh I forgot, sheeple believe correlation is causation.

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 19, 2014, 06:10:04 PM
With every post by some, like sys, comes a further study in incapacity on educational level. 

$2.6 Billion in Federal Funding for Climate Research per year.  Almost every dime of it goes to Warmist Scientists.

The National Resource Defense Council has more assets listed on their IRS forms than the American Petroleum Institute.

The Rockefeller Foundation (Nearly $800 million in assets) has pumped millions into campaigns to thwart energy development via other so called non profits.

The Nature Conservancy lists $6 billion in assets.  (a non profit)

Overall non-profit environmental entities in the United States are a $13 to $14 billion dollar per year enterprise.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, around $150 million in assets vs the Gordon and Betty Moore foundation. $5.2 billion in assets.



 

This has to do with the climate change how?

Follow the tax money.

correlation is causation.

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk

Yes, but not in the way you think.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 19, 2014, 07:36:26 PM
Yes.  I am clearly demonstrating a sheeple mindset.

The Rockefeller Foundations (for example) funneling of monies to anti carbon energy development campaigns  is fact.  I don't even see where correlation/causation even comes into play unless you want to assert that to the entirety of the who is funding who debate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on May 20, 2014, 12:13:23 AM
The Rockefellers have always been anti-carbon energy, fwiw. Good catch, Dax.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 20, 2014, 09:16:55 AM
The Rockefellers have always been anti

-carbon energy, fwiw. Good catch, Dax.

You should go rummage around in the trash can for that throwaway comment.

It doesn't matter what they once were (the irony is noted though), it matters what their foundation is now.   Thing is, they got there's on the back of carbon energy.  Now their foundation works to try and make sure nobody else can.   
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Jabeez on May 20, 2014, 09:28:18 AM
Yes.  I am clearly demonstrating a sheeple mindset.

The Rockefeller Foundations (for example) funneling of monies to anti carbon energy development campaigns  is fact.  I don't even see where correlation/causation even comes into play unless you want to assert that to the entirety of the who is funding who debate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here's a similar argument one could make,  using funding as an argument for why something happens, "Research that is against climate change is paid for by organizations which are in turn funded by large contributors of green house gasses.  Therefore, climate change is real." 

Quote
The Charles G. Koch Foundation gave climate skeptic Willie Soon two grants totaling $175,000 in 2005/6 and again in 2010. Soon has stated that he has "never been motivated by financial reward in any of my scientific research".[87] The foundation helped finance a 2007 analysis suggesting that climate change was not a threat to the survival of polar bears,[88] which was questioned by other researchers.[89] The foundation also funded a $150,000 study by UC Berkeley physicist Richard A. Muller who initially concluded that global warming data was flawed, but later reversed his views, supporting scientific consensus.[90][91]         
Quote

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers)

My entire point is your logic is totally flawed.  Foundations funding research about climate change doesnt prove anything outside of, foundations fund research about  global warming.

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 20, 2014, 10:49:50 AM
You're missing the entire point.

Big Green has attempted to paint this false picture that it's just a bunch of pine cone eaters in shacks going up against Big Bad Oil.

In reality, it's well heeled multi-million/billion dollar enterprises, with the backing of a Federal Gov't who is funneling billions towards group think warmist psuedo-scientists worshiping at the alter of Global Climate Change Orthodoxy.

On a somewhat related note:  Someone in another forum mentioned what some have mentioned on here regarding a region of our country that includes Western Kansas.   There's a very strong possibility that we, for lack of better words, lucked out in the last few hundred years in that we caught the Western Kansas, Eastern Colorado, and Panhandle regions of Texas and Oklahoma and parts of New Mexico in a period of relative moisture surplus (for lack of  better words) and now that region of our country is reverting back to its relative normal state when traced back in the timeline of Earth history, or at least the timeline of this current phase of Earth history and climate. 



Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 20, 2014, 11:30:29 AM
Yes.  I am clearly demonstrating a sheeple mindset.

The Rockefeller Foundations (for example) funneling of monies to anti carbon energy development campaigns  is fact.  I don't even see where correlation/causation even comes into play unless you want to assert that to the entirety of the who is funding who debate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here's a similar argument one could make,  using funding as an argument for why something happens, "Research that is against climate change is paid for by organizations which are in turn funded by large contributors of green house gasses.  Therefore, climate change is real." 

Quote
The Charles G. Koch Foundation gave climate skeptic Willie Soon two grants totaling $175,000 in 2005/6 and again in 2010. Soon has stated that he has "never been motivated by financial reward in any of my scientific research".[87] The foundation helped finance a 2007 analysis suggesting that climate change was not a threat to the survival of polar bears,[88] which was questioned by other researchers.[89] The foundation also funded a $150,000 study by UC Berkeley physicist Richard A. Muller who initially concluded that global warming data was flawed, but later reversed his views, supporting scientific consensus.[90][91]         
Quote

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers)

My entire point is your logic is totally flawed.  Foundations funding research about climate change doesnt prove anything outside of, foundations fund research about  global warming.

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk

 :confused:

Quote from: Wikipedia
The page "Political activities of George Soros" does not exist
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on May 20, 2014, 11:38:33 AM
Are we really comparing the assets of non-profits to companies like Exxon and Chevron and Koch?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on May 20, 2014, 11:47:31 AM
Are we really comparing the assets of non-profits to companies like Exxon and Chevron and Koch?
and acting like their motivations are similar as well?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Jabeez on May 20, 2014, 11:55:43 AM
Yes.  I am clearly demonstrating a sheeple mindset.

The Rockefeller Foundations (for example) funneling of monies to anti carbon energy development campaigns  is fact.  I don't even see where correlation/causation even comes into play unless you want to assert that to the entirety of the who is funding who debate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here's a similar argument one could make,  using funding as an argument for why something happens, "Research that is against climate change is paid for by organizations which are in turn funded by large contributors of green house gasses.  Therefore, climate change is real." 

Quote
The Charles G. Koch Foundation gave climate skeptic Willie Soon two grants totaling $175,000 in 2005/6 and again in 2010. Soon has stated that he has "never been motivated by financial reward in any of my scientific research".[87] The foundation helped finance a 2007 analysis suggesting that climate change was not a threat to the survival of polar bears,[88] which was questioned by other researchers.[89] The foundation also funded a $150,000 study by UC Berkeley physicist Richard A. Muller who initially concluded that global warming data was flawed, but later reversed his views, supporting scientific consensus.[90][91]         

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers)

My entire point is your logic is totally flawed.  Foundations funding research about climate change doesnt prove anything outside of, foundations fund research about  global warming.

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk

 :confused:

Quote from: Wikipedia
The page "Political activities of George Soros" does not exist

You're terrible at this.

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on May 20, 2014, 11:56:18 AM

Big Green has attempted to paint this false picture that it's just a bunch of pine cone eaters in shacks going up against Big Bad Oil..

Also, really? When did this happen?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 20, 2014, 12:11:31 PM
Do some actually believe that any corporation can pull from their coffers the type of money that the Federal Gov't can funnel to like thinking warmist scientists and do it year, after year, after year? 


Come on cRusty, Big Green has attempted to paint Big Oil and the Koch Brothers as a bottomless pit of funds to finance anti-warmist propaganda, while they, Big Green dig for some lint in their pockets.


Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on May 20, 2014, 12:32:14 PM
Do some actually believe that any corporation can pull from their coffers the type of money that the Federal Gov't can funnel to like thinking warmist scientists and do it year, after year, after year? 


Come on cRusty, Big Green has attempted to paint Big Oil and the Koch Brothers as a bottomless pit of funds to finance anti-warmist propaganda, while they, Big Green dig for some lint in their pockets.

I was more confused by the pine come clutching reference.

Who on the "Big Green" side can match the net worth of the Koch's?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Kat Kid on May 20, 2014, 12:34:21 PM
Do some actually believe that any corporation can pull from their coffers the type of money that the Federal Gov't can funnel to like thinking warmist scientists and do it year, after year, after year? 


Come on cRusty, Big Green has attempted to paint Big Oil and the Koch Brothers as a bottomless pit of funds to finance anti-warmist propaganda, while they, Big Green dig for some lint in their pockets.

One side has scientists and money.

Another side has capitalists and money.

Are you arguing that both sides are equally committed to research and profit?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 20, 2014, 12:58:04 PM
Do some actually believe that any corporation can pull from their coffers the type of money that the Federal Gov't can funnel to like thinking warmist scientists and do it year, after year, after year? 


Come on cRusty, Big Green has attempted to paint Big Oil and the Koch Brothers as a bottomless pit of funds to finance anti-warmist propaganda, while they, Big Green dig for some lint in their pockets.

I was more confused by the pine come clutching reference.

Who on the "Big Green" side can match the net worth of the Koch's?

Goerge Soros, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Jeff Bezos, Larry Ellison, Larry Page?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on May 20, 2014, 01:02:15 PM
Do some actually believe that any corporation can pull from their coffers the type of money that the Federal Gov't can funnel to like thinking warmist scientists and do it year, after year, after year? 


Come on cRusty, Big Green has attempted to paint Big Oil and the Koch Brothers as a bottomless pit of funds to finance anti-warmist propaganda, while they, Big Green dig for some lint in their pockets.

I was more confused by the pine come clutching reference.

Who on the "Big Green" side can match the net worth of the Koch's?

Goerge Soros, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Jeff Bezos, Larry Ellison, Larry Page?

a quick search tells me that the Koch brothers have a higher net worth than everyone you listed.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 20, 2014, 01:25:55 PM
Do some actually believe that any corporation can pull from their coffers the type of money that the Federal Gov't can funnel to like thinking warmist scientists and do it year, after year, after year? 


Come on cRusty, Big Green has attempted to paint Big Oil and the Koch Brothers as a bottomless pit of funds to finance anti-warmist propaganda, while they, Big Green dig for some lint in their pockets.

I was more confused by the pine come clutching reference.

Who on the "Big Green" side can match the net worth of the Koch's?

Goerge Soros, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Jeff Bezos, Larry Ellison, Larry Page?

a quick search tells me that the Koch brothers have a higher net worth than everyone you listed.

2014 richest people in the world. Bill Gates and Buffett are like brothers, so we should add them together.

1. Bill Gates
Net Worth: $76 B
Source of wealth: Microsoft

2. Carlos Slim Helu & family
Net Worth: $72 B
Source of wealth: telecom

3. Amancio Ortega
Net Worth: $64 B
Source of wealth: retail

4. Warren Buffett
Net Worth: $58.2 B
Source of wealth: Berkshire Hathaway

5. Larry Ellison
Net Worth: $48 B
Source of wealth: Oracle

6. Charles Koch
Net Worth: $40 B
Source of wealth: diversified

6. David Koch
Net Worth: $40 B
Source of wealth: diversified
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on May 20, 2014, 01:26:41 PM
lol
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on May 20, 2014, 01:29:52 PM
$40 B each.  what losers.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on May 20, 2014, 01:31:47 PM
$40 B each.  what losers.

That figure may be outdated:

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-16/koch-brothers-worth-100-billion-buying-printers-to-ads.html
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on May 20, 2014, 02:28:43 PM
This latest round from Dax and John is so illogical that it shouldn't even be addressed.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: slobber on May 20, 2014, 04:11:14 PM
Just when I want to agree with one of their posts, I read the next paragraph and then I no longer want to agree.


Gonna win 'em all! (But maybe not now)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 20, 2014, 07:22:04 PM
Really?  We're comparing net worth of (primarily) business people who's (by and large) assets are tied up in a dizzying array of investments, most of which are tied to the ongoing propagation of the various enterprises and the thousands of people (in most cases) that they employ.

Against the net worth of entities who's worth is tied to in most cases a solitary mission.

Fascinating.

Then, we'll toss in the U.S. Gov't, who in essence has a license to confiscate trillions of dollars from the tax payers (which include the business entities run by the people listed) and they pretty much dispense the largess as they see fit.  So far they've seen fit to dispense nearly $3 billion a year to entities who for the most part consist of warmest propagandist scientists who are known to tow the line in order to continue the flow of government research money (and quickly attempt to ostracize and silence scientists who don't tow the line). 

Again . . . fascinating.




Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on May 20, 2014, 07:41:40 PM
Every ten pages or so I'm going to remind you all of the original point of this thread, a point yet to be refuted, that the AGW hypotheses - the models - drastically overstated warming. If the hypothesis is wrong, then the theory is wrong. That's the scientific method.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on May 20, 2014, 08:10:56 PM
it was pretty hot today fellas  :Sweat:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: steve dave on May 20, 2014, 08:17:15 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/8YbZ8cv.gif)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: EllRobersonisInnocent on May 20, 2014, 08:47:33 PM
 :thumbs:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: 8manpick on May 20, 2014, 08:51:40 PM
Every ten pages or so I'm going to remind you all of the original point of this thread, a point yet to be refuted, that the AGW hypotheses - the models - drastically overstated warming. If the hypothesis is wrong, then the theory is wrong. That's the scientific method.

Well, no, the hypothesis can be wrong and still lead to a coincidentally accurate theory. Modus tollens or something.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 20, 2014, 11:18:46 PM
When arguing with leftists (dolts) you have to remember that they think the federal government is a purely altruistic institution, comprised of individuals without a modicum of self interest and self dealing. I know it's naive and foolish, but it's their sophomoric predisposition and it's unwavering.

Look here, you have a group of people arguing tooth and nail that the net worth of handful of people and corporations is some how in parity with the annual giving of the world's governments to agw research. This is a laughable statement that's beyond correction.  You would literally have to start by teaching basic accounting on a message board, which would be like teaching mandarin on a message board, only the person to be taught doesn't want to learn.

Further complicating the incomprehension of the leftist (dolt) is their misunderstanding of science and their complete lack of perspective and scale with respect to AGW, specifically the associated consequences of prematurely implementing the policies they want to curtail greenhouse gas emissions.  Let's assume AGW is proven one day, but its effects have been overstated by these provably unreliable models by a factor of 50, meaning the effect is essentially de minimus.

They'd nonetheless insist on the economically devastating policies they are proposing, because they are insane and this has nothing to do with science or preserving the earth. It's about power and control. The policies they desire further consolidate wealth within governments, and to the detriment of an ever expanding group of poor people and some rich people that decided to invest in oil instead of green energy.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: EllRobersonisInnocent on May 20, 2014, 11:27:32 PM
wtf?  :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 20, 2014, 11:40:50 PM
wtf?  :lol:

A=L+E  :shooturmouth: :shooturmouth:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 20, 2014, 11:53:01 PM
lol

I think you meant "each person"
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on May 21, 2014, 07:00:19 AM
They'd nonetheless insist on the economically devastating policies they are proposing, because they are insane and this has nothing to do with science or preserving the earth. It's about power and control. The policies they desire further consolidate wealth within governments, and to the detriment of an ever expanding group of poor people and some rich people that decided to invest in oil instead of green energy.

Perfectly demonstrated by John "I'm a War Hero, too" Kerry at his commencement address the other day, when he asked: "supposing [AGW is false], what's the worst that can happen?" They're libtards, and they really can't see the downside of imposing trillions in taxes and regulatory burdens on our economy in pursuit of a theory that is not only unproven - its hypotheses aren't even bearing out.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on May 21, 2014, 07:53:05 AM
When arguing with leftists (dolts) you have to remember that they think the federal government is a purely altruistic institution, comprised of individuals without a modicum of self interest and self dealing. I know it's naive and foolish, but it's their sophomoric predisposition and it's unwavering.

Look here, you have a group of people arguing tooth and nail that the net worth of handful of people and corporations is some how in parity with the annual giving of the world's governments to agw research. This is a laughable statement that's beyond correction.  You would literally have to start by teaching basic accounting on a message board, which would be like teaching mandarin on a message board, only the person to be taught doesn't want to learn.

Further complicating the incomprehension of the leftist (dolt) is their misunderstanding of science and their complete lack of perspective and scale with respect to AGW, specifically the associated consequences of prematurely implementing the policies they want to curtail greenhouse gas emissions.  Let's assume AGW is proven one day, but its effects have been overstated by these provably unreliable models by a factor of 50, meaning the effect is essentially de minimus.

They'd nonetheless insist on the economically devastating policies they are proposing, because they are insane and this has nothing to do with science or preserving the earth. It's about power and control. The policies they desire further consolidate wealth within governments, and to the detriment of an ever expanding group of poor people and some rich people that decided to invest in oil instead of green energy.

Amid all the FSD-isms, he at least seems to understand science better than K-S-U.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 21, 2014, 12:59:04 PM
Just want to shout out to Sarah Knapton for this Captain Obvious article about the green bias in climate science.

The Green Mafia just doesn't want anyone to throw a wrench into that government gravy train.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10837146/Climate-change-science-has-become-blind-to-green-bias.html

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 21, 2014, 01:43:22 PM
When arguing with leftists (dolts) you have to remember that they think the federal government is a purely altruistic institution, comprised of individuals without a modicum of self interest and self dealing. I know it's naive and foolish, but it's their sophomoric predisposition and it's unwavering.

Look here, you have a group of people arguing tooth and nail that the net worth of handful of people and corporations is some how in parity with the annual giving of the world's governments to agw research. This is a laughable statement that's beyond correction.  You would literally have to start by teaching basic accounting on a message board, which would be like teaching mandarin on a message board, only the person to be taught doesn't want to learn.

Further complicating the incomprehension of the leftist (dolt) is their misunderstanding of science and their complete lack of perspective and scale with respect to AGW, specifically the associated consequences of prematurely implementing the policies they want to curtail greenhouse gas emissions.  Let's assume AGW is proven one day, but its effects have been overstated by these provably unreliable models by a factor of 50, meaning the effect is essentially de minimus.

They'd nonetheless insist on the economically devastating policies they are proposing, because they are insane and this has nothing to do with science or preserving the earth. It's about power and control. The policies they desire further consolidate wealth within governments, and to the detriment of an ever expanding group of poor people and some rich people that decided to invest in oil instead of green energy.

Amid all the FSD-isms, he at least seems to understand science better than K-S-U.

Is there a single point of refute in my entire diatribe?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on May 21, 2014, 01:50:04 PM
When arguing with leftists (dolts) you have to remember that they think the federal government is a purely altruistic institution, comprised of individuals without a modicum of self interest and self dealing. I know it's naive and foolish, but it's their sophomoric predisposition and it's unwavering.

Look here, you have a group of people arguing tooth and nail that the net worth of handful of people and corporations is some how in parity with the annual giving of the world's governments to agw research. This is a laughable statement that's beyond correction.  You would literally have to start by teaching basic accounting on a message board, which would be like teaching mandarin on a message board, only the person to be taught doesn't want to learn.

Further complicating the incomprehension of the leftist (dolt) is their misunderstanding of science and their complete lack of perspective and scale with respect to AGW, specifically the associated consequences of prematurely implementing the policies they want to curtail greenhouse gas emissions.  Let's assume AGW is proven one day, but its effects have been overstated by these provably unreliable models by a factor of 50, meaning the effect is essentially de minimus.

They'd nonetheless insist on the economically devastating policies they are proposing, because they are insane and this has nothing to do with science or preserving the earth. It's about power and control. The policies they desire further consolidate wealth within governments, and to the detriment of an ever expanding group of poor people and some rich people that decided to invest in oil instead of green energy.

Amid all the FSD-isms, he at least seems to understand science better than K-S-U.

Is there a single point of refute in my entire diatribe?


To start, I don't think "leftists think the federal government is a purely altruistic institution", but it didn't seem worth arguing. I agree that the greenhouse effect should continue to be studied and refined as we gain data.

It's an entertaining rant, but it's difficult to take you seriously, ya know?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 21, 2014, 01:57:31 PM
Okay, change "all" to "an overwhelming majority" and we've got an irrefutable statement summarizing everything that is wrong with the politicization of climate change.

Thanks for helping.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Jabeez on May 21, 2014, 02:07:42 PM
Okay, change "all" to "an overwhelming majority" and we've got an irrefutable statement summarizing everything that is wrong with the politicization of climate change.

Thanks for helping.

I think we're closing in on settling this issue,  you're welcome America!

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on May 21, 2014, 02:07:55 PM
Okay, change "all" to "an overwhelming majority" and we've got an irrefutable statement summarizing everything that is wrong with the politicization of climate change.

Thanks for helping.

I don't think that's accurate.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 21, 2014, 02:10:11 PM
Okay, change "all" to "an overwhelming majority" and we've got an irrefutable statement summarizing everything that is wrong with the politicization of climate change.

Thanks for helping.

I don't think that's accurate.

Yeah, you're probably right. How about "nearly all" or "substantially all" or "virtually all"?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 21, 2014, 05:19:53 PM
It's the inquisition, what a show!  The inquisition, here we go!

http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/2014/05/climate-change_shenanigans_at_.html

All skeptics shall be shunned!



Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on May 21, 2014, 06:28:34 PM
It's the inquisition, what a show!  The inquisition, here we go!

http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/2014/05/climate-change_shenanigans_at_.html

All skeptics shall be shunned!
Quote
Minding the Campus is a website
of the Manhattan Institute
Quote
The Manhattan Institute received over $31 million in grants from 1985 to 2012, from foundations such as the Koch Family Foundations, the John M. Olin Foundation, the Bradley Foundation, the Scaife Foundations, and the Smith Richardson Foundation.[13] The Manhattan Institute does not disclose its corporate funding, but the Capital Research Center listed its contributors as Bristol-Myers Squibb, ExxonMobil, Chase Manhattan, Cigna, Sprint Nextel, Reliant Energy, Lincoln Financial Group Foundation, and Merrill Lynch. Throughout the 1990s the Tobacco industry was a major funding source for the institute. [14]
:lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on May 21, 2014, 06:37:18 PM
one minute dax is talking about The Grand Chessboard and how america is obsessed with geostrategic oil bullshit and the next he's saying that government has an anti-carbon(oil) energy bias!

what a rough ridin' lunatic!  :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on May 21, 2014, 06:38:14 PM
(http://goEMAW.com/forum/Smileys/goEMAW/LOL.gif)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on May 21, 2014, 06:59:38 PM
(http://goEMAW.com/forum/Smileys/goEMAW/LOL.gif)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 21, 2014, 09:52:15 PM

 :lol:

I'm pretty sure bubbles has mental retardation. Like, he clearly doesn't get it.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 21, 2014, 10:12:19 PM
I'll admit, part of me is sad that people like bubbles, jackstack, ell, et al, associate (perhaps attend and graduate from) kstate, because they are so goddamn ignorant and unintelligent, and their existence thereby denigrates the achievements and accomplishments of other alumni. Then I remember this is a message board, they are (hopefully) extreme exceptions, and the entertainment value to myself far exceeds any perceptible damage to me or the university.

What's really sad is that this pathetic forum seems to encourage this ignorant existence, while operating under the guise of the university.  That's what makes me hate the crap out the mods, aside from the special treatment I get from them. They are the most pathetic and worst people. It also makes their criticism of the administration just rough ridin' laughable as it relates to the perception of the university.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 21, 2014, 10:17:59 PM
one minute dax is talking about The Grand Chessboard and how america is obsessed with geostrategic oil bullshit and the next he's saying that government has an anti-carbon(oil) energy bias!

what a rough ridin' lunatic!  :lol:

The agenda of control takes on many forms, it's a shame that you continually fail to understand that.   America and its proxies control the oil, so China and Russia don't, it's not about consumption, it's about . . . control.    You're an amoeba.



Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Jackstack99EMAW on May 21, 2014, 10:21:14 PM
I'll admit, part of me is sad that people like bubbles, jackstack, ell, et al, associate (perhaps attend and graduate from) kstate, because they are so goddamn ignorant and unintelligent, and their existence thereby denigrates the achievements and accomplishments of other alumni. Then I remember this is a message board, they are (hopefully) extreme exceptions, and the entertainment value to myself far exceeds any perceptible damage to me or the university.

What's really sad is that this pathetic forum seems to encourage this ignorant existence, while operating under the guise of the university.  That's what makes me hate the crap out the mods, aside from the special treatment I get from them. They are the most pathetic and worst people. It also makes their criticism of the administration just rough ridin' laughable as it relates to the perception of the university.
Thanks for the shoutout!   :lol:
But at what point did I take a stance in this thread?  You're a dumbass when it comes to gay marriage and a lot of other things but that's really the only thing I've called you out on because your stance is just mind numbingly stupid and illogical.  You also called atheism(I believe) a religion today which is just incredible. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 21, 2014, 10:22:19 PM
It's the inquisition, what a show!  The inquisition, here we go!

http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/2014/05/climate-change_shenanigans_at_.html

All skeptics shall be shunned!
Quote
Minding the Campus is a website
of the Manhattan Institute
Quote
The Manhattan Institute received over $31 million in grants from 1985 to 2012, from foundations such as the Koch Family Foundations, the John M. Olin Foundation, the Bradley Foundation, the Scaife Foundations, and the Smith Richardson Foundation.[13] The Manhattan Institute does not disclose its corporate funding, but the Capital Research Center listed its contributors as Bristol-Myers Squibb, ExxonMobil, Chase Manhattan, Cigna, Sprint Nextel, Reliant Energy, Lincoln Financial Group Foundation, and Merrill Lynch. Throughout the 1990s the Tobacco industry was a major funding source for the institute. [14]
:lol:

First off, you'd probably find many of the same entities funding various institutes that you believe without question.   That's how the game is played.

Now, you need to show where the article is factually incorrect.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on May 21, 2014, 10:23:51 PM
I'll admit, part of me is sad that people like bubbles, jackstack, ell, et al, associate (perhaps attend and graduate from) kstate, because they are so goddamn ignorant and unintelligent, and their existence thereby denigrates the achievements and accomplishments of other alumni. Then I remember this is a message board, they are (hopefully) extreme exceptions, and the entertainment value to myself far exceeds any perceptible damage to me or the university.

What's really sad is that this pathetic forum seems to encourage this ignorant existence, while operating under the guise of the university.  That's what makes me hate the crap out the mods, aside from the special treatment I get from them. They are the most pathetic and worst people. It also makes their criticism of the administration just rough ridin' laughable as it relates to the perception of the university.

Can you point me to the forums you think are good?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 21, 2014, 10:26:10 PM
Like British Petroleum isn't raping the public with wind energy, and Chevron doesn't buy all the green energy tax credits. How rough ridin' stupid can all of you people be?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 21, 2014, 10:29:05 PM
Like British Petroleum isn't raping the public with wind energy, and Chevron doesn't buy all the green energy tax credits. How rough ridin' stupid can all of you people be?

Numerous European companies have poured billions into green energy . . . Didn't Merkel just announce that the German Gov't is pulling back?   Not cost effective and high energy rates I believe was the reason.   
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 21, 2014, 10:32:43 PM
I'll admit, part of me is sad that people like bubbles, jackstack, ell, et al, associate (perhaps attend and graduate from) kstate, because they are so goddamn ignorant and unintelligent, and their existence thereby denigrates the achievements and accomplishments of other alumni. Then I remember this is a message board, they are (hopefully) extreme exceptions, and the entertainment value to myself far exceeds any perceptible damage to me or the university.

What's really sad is that this pathetic forum seems to encourage this ignorant existence, while operating under the guise of the university.  That's what makes me hate the crap out the mods, aside from the special treatment I get from them. They are the most pathetic and worst people. It also makes their criticism of the administration just rough ridin' laughable as it relates to the perception of the university.
Thanks for the shoutout!   :lol:
But at what point did I take a stance in this thread?  You're a dumbass when it comes to gay marriage and a lot of other things but that's really the only thing I've called you out on because your stance is just mind numbingly stupid and illogical.  You also called atheism(I believe) a religion today which is just incredible.

This is exactly the kind of crap I'm talking about. This person doesn't even understand what they are reading.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Jackstack99EMAW on May 21, 2014, 10:34:12 PM
I'll admit, part of me is sad that people like bubbles, jackstack, ell, et al, associate (perhaps attend and graduate from) kstate, because they are so goddamn ignorant and unintelligent, and their existence thereby denigrates the achievements and accomplishments of other alumni. Then I remember this is a message board, they are (hopefully) extreme exceptions, and the entertainment value to myself far exceeds any perceptible damage to me or the university.

What's really sad is that this pathetic forum seems to encourage this ignorant existence, while operating under the guise of the university.  That's what makes me hate the crap out the mods, aside from the special treatment I get from them. They are the most pathetic and worst people. It also makes their criticism of the administration just rough ridin' laughable as it relates to the perception of the university.
Thanks for the shoutout!   :lol:
But at what point did I take a stance in this thread?  You're a dumbass when it comes to gay marriage and a lot of other things but that's really the only thing I've called you out on because your stance is just mind numbingly stupid and illogical.  You also called atheism(I believe) a religion today which is just incredible.

This is exactly the kind of crap I'm talking about. This person doesn't even understand what they are reading.
:flush:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on May 21, 2014, 10:34:34 PM
no disrespect to the many other humorous posters on this board but drunk FSD and political board dax are my two favs.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 21, 2014, 10:37:46 PM
no disrespect to the many other humorous posters on this board but drunk FSD and political board dax are my two favs.

Your simple little mind brings a smile to my face.

Never stop bubbles.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 21, 2014, 10:42:20 PM
Like British Petroleum isn't raping the public with wind energy, and Chevron doesn't buy all the green energy tax credits. How rough ridin' stupid can all of you people be?

Numerous European companies have poured billions into green energy . . . Didn't Merkel just announce that the German Gov't is pulling back?   Not cost effective and high energy rates I believe was the reason.

I would assume that most of the European companies pouring money into green energy, are actually owned by, or so heavily subsidized by the state, that they are for all intents and purposes "big government".

Germany was very aggressive in wind and solar, and they are paying a high price for that "investment". However, western Europe(sans Norway) is in a completely different position than the US, as they have very little recoverable hydrocarbon reserves. This presents a significant disadvantage to Europe economically,  which explains their motive to rid the earth of fossil fuel development.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 21, 2014, 10:43:49 PM
I mean to say countries, not companies, but the point remains.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 21, 2014, 10:45:09 PM
I mean to say countries, not companies, but the point remains.

It's the difference between China and Chinese corporations.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 21, 2014, 10:48:02 PM
no disrespect to the many other humorous posters on this board but drunk FSD and political board dax are my two favs.

If you're lucky, I'll take you to feed the ducks.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on May 21, 2014, 10:49:04 PM
FSD with a quality beemsian meltdown
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on May 21, 2014, 10:51:41 PM
get a load of that dax and FSD discussion!

 :lol: :lol: :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 21, 2014, 10:54:11 PM
Like I said, cornucopia of low hanging fruit.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: slobber on May 22, 2014, 05:37:40 AM
I don't understand most of what I read in this thread.

With regards to the topic, I think most of the models that were so heavily quoted 20 plus years ago were wrong. There were other models, but they provided nothing that would sell a magazine or newspaper, or put people's rear in seats at major fundraisers. People that think status quo is likely and acceptable just don't get that energized to go out and support that position with $.

Big Companies throw money at both parties, but not typically at two conflicting view points. NGO's existence are largely based on one directive, and that is to influence politics. "Give us some money to help us organize for our cause." For large companies, or owners of privately held companies, influencing politics might make the top 10. "Give us some money for a good or service that you want or need."

I work for a large company that has spent millions this year and last to further research for a current 'hot button' topic. My company has millions and millions budgeted to spend on this issue in the future years as well. All $ being spent on serious studies and done in collaboration with people from both sides of the political isle and all different view points on the subject matter. Meanwhile, there are daily press releases and planned protests from the other side, with absolutely no money from that side being invested in research. The other side is best described as WBCish. You can't argue with them, but they really don't do anything to make conditions better for anyone else. They just want visibility and to make their supporters feel good about themselves.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: steve dave on May 22, 2014, 07:10:43 AM
I don't understand most of what I read in this thread.

With regards to the topic, I think most of the models that were so heavily quoted 20 plus years ago were wrong. There were other models, but they provided nothing that would sell a magazine or newspaper, or put people's rear in seats at major fundraisers. People that think status quo is likely and acceptable just don't get that energized to go out and support that position with $.

Big Companies throw money at both parties, but not typically at two conflicting view points. NGO's existence are largely based on one directive, and that is to influence politics. "Give us some money to help us organize for our cause." For large companies, or owners of privately held companies, influencing politics might make the top 10. "Give us some money for a good or service that you want or need."

I work for a large company that has spent millions this year and last to further research for a current 'hot button' topic. My company has millions and millions budgeted to spend on this issue in the future years as well. All $ being spent on serious studies and done in collaboration with people from both sides of the political isle and all different view points on the subject matter. Meanwhile, there are daily press releases and planned protests from the other side, with absolutely no money from that side being invested in research. The other side is best described as WBCish. You can't argue with them, but they really don't do anything to make conditions better for anyone else. They just want visibility and to make their supporters feel good about themselves.

I'm just guessing, and I didn't go looking for this, but ran across this morning:

http://boingboing.net/2014/05/21/yet-another-study-points-to-pe.html
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: slobber on May 22, 2014, 07:42:19 AM
Quote
"Our goal is very clear: to impact the politics as it relates to climate in a time period that will result in policies that allow our country and the world to avoid the perils of climate change," said Chris Lehane, a Democratic strategist advising the super PAC. "In a sense, it's a race against time."

This will surely help decide the issue and provide clear solutions, right?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/22/environmentalist-super-pac-to-spend-100m-to-back-democrats-in-senate-races/?intcmp=latestnews (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/22/environmentalist-super-pac-to-spend-100m-to-back-democrats-in-senate-races/?intcmp=latestnews)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: slobber on May 22, 2014, 07:47:25 AM
I'm just guessing, and I didn't go looking for this, but ran across this morning:

http://boingboing.net/2014/05/21/yet-another-study-points-to-pe.html

Here are some really great thoughts from an outspoken anti-pesticide, organic gardener who has been involved with bees for the better part of his life. If anyone read the above, then they have to read this as well.
http://scientificbeekeeping.com/news-and-blogs-page/ (http://scientificbeekeeping.com/news-and-blogs-page/)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: steve dave on May 22, 2014, 07:50:58 AM
I'm just guessing, and I didn't go looking for this, but ran across this morning:

http://boingboing.net/2014/05/21/yet-another-study-points-to-pe.html

Here are some really great thoughts from an outspoken anti-pesticide, organic gardener who has been involved with bees for the better part of his life. If anyone read the above, then they have to read this as well.
http://scientificbeekeeping.com/news-and-blogs-page/ (http://scientificbeekeeping.com/news-and-blogs-page/)

that guy should do his own study using those things he says.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: slobber on May 22, 2014, 07:58:30 AM
I'm just guessing, and I didn't go looking for this, but ran across this morning:

http://boingboing.net/2014/05/21/yet-another-study-points-to-pe.html

Here are some really great thoughts from an outspoken anti-pesticide, organic gardener who has been involved with bees for the better part of his life. If anyone read the above, then they have to read this as well.
http://scientificbeekeeping.com/news-and-blogs-page/ (http://scientificbeekeeping.com/news-and-blogs-page/)

that guy should do his own study using those things he says.
He is involved. Studies have been done or are ongoing. No link (and no proven link, YET!).
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: slobber on May 22, 2014, 08:02:13 AM
I'm just guessing, and I didn't go looking for this, but ran across this morning:

http://boingboing.net/2014/05/21/yet-another-study-points-to-pe.html

Here are some really great thoughts from an outspoken anti-pesticide, organic gardener who has been involved with bees for the better part of his life. If anyone read the above, then they have to read this as well.
http://scientificbeekeeping.com/news-and-blogs-page/ (http://scientificbeekeeping.com/news-and-blogs-page/)

that guy should do his own study using those things he says.
On second thought, here is a link that "that guy" posted in the link that I linked.
http://scientificbeekeeping.com/sick-bees-part-2-a-model-of-colony-collapse/ (http://scientificbeekeeping.com/sick-bees-part-2-a-model-of-colony-collapse/)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: steve dave on May 22, 2014, 08:03:27 AM
disclaimer: I have no idea if this is the topic you were referring to in your original post and I personally know nothing about it. but, you really painted the "other side" of the argument with a broad stroke of dismissal and praised the "good" side for their doing really sciency stuff and not trying to sway the results and all that. then you counter pointed a harvard study by posting a link to a blog from one guy who likes bees. If this is the issue, it's hard to read your take into it as anything other than the regurgitation of BIG PESTICIDE.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: slobber on May 22, 2014, 08:10:44 AM
disclaimer: I have no idea if this is the topic you were referring to in your original post and I personally know nothing about it. but, you really painted the "other side" of the argument with a broad stroke of dismissal and praised the "good" side for their doing really sciency stuff and not trying to sway the results and all that. then you counter pointed a harvard study by posting a link to a blog from one guy who likes bees. If this is the issue, it's hard to read your take into it as anything other than the regurgitation of BIG PESTICIDE.
Well, the Harvard study is pretty lame, to be fair.

A blog can be factual, as evidenced on gE. I enjoy bees more than the average person, and for more than one reason I have a very vested interest in their survival. Also, annonimity only goes so far, so I should digress.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: slobber on May 22, 2014, 08:11:50 AM
How about that climate change bs?

(I'm tapping out.)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: steve dave on May 22, 2014, 08:12:48 AM
I love bees. sddad has bee boxes on some of his alfalfa. I eat that stuff on the reg. and I wasn't trying to pry into your private stuff or fight about the topic. I was just guessing based on your post.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: slobber on May 22, 2014, 08:17:11 AM
I love bees. sddad has bee boxes on some of his alfalfa. I eat that stuff on the reg. and I wasn't trying to pry into your private stuff or fight about the topic. I was just guessing based on your post.
Didn't take it as you trying to fight or pry. If I don't want to talk about something, then I shouldn't post it. (Which means I really must want to talk about it... but I really shouldn't.)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on May 22, 2014, 08:40:50 AM
I would have guessed it was about GMO's! Which is almost at the level of anti-vacc wackos but not quite.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: steve dave on May 22, 2014, 08:43:48 AM
I would have guessed it was about GMO's! Which is almost at the level of anti-vacc wackos but not quite.

I knew in general what biz he worked in from previous posts.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on May 22, 2014, 08:52:51 AM
You pay very close attention to this blog.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: steve dave on May 22, 2014, 08:53:31 AM
You pay very close attention to this blog.

if you want to be the best message boarder you can be you have to put in the time
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: slobber on May 22, 2014, 08:53:39 AM
You pay very close attention to your blog.
fyp
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 22, 2014, 09:23:15 AM
This thread is worthless without a chart magnifying bee death anomalies.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Jabeez on May 22, 2014, 09:37:17 AM
I would have guessed it was about GMO's! Which is almost at the level of anti-vacc wackos but not quite.
I think it's hilarious how far right and far left people are against GMOs and vaccinations. Maybe it's just conspiracy whackos in general from both sides? Probably should be in another thread,  continue on.

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on May 22, 2014, 09:42:59 AM
I would have guessed it was about GMO's! Which is almost at the level of anti-vacc wackos but not quite.
I think it's hilarious how far right and far left people are against GMOs and vaccinations. Maybe it's just conspiracy whackos in general from both sides? Probably should be in another thread,  continue on.

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk

The gmo labeling push has a ton of support from the mainstream left. The anti vaccination crowd is a little more extreme.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Jabeez on May 22, 2014, 10:43:40 AM
I would have guessed it was about GMO's! Which is almost at the level of anti-vacc wackos but not quite.
I think it's hilarious how far right and far left people are against GMOs and vaccinations. Maybe it's just conspiracy whackos in general from both sides? Probably should be in another thread,  continue on.

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk

The gmo labeling push has a ton of support from the mainstream left. The anti vaccination crowd is a little more extreme.

You obviously haven't listened to enough Alex Jones.

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 22, 2014, 10:54:54 AM
I would have guessed it was about GMO's! Which is almost at the level of anti-vacc wackos but not quite.
I think it's hilarious how far right and far left people are against GMOs and vaccinations. Maybe it's just conspiracy whackos in general from both sides? Probably should be in another thread,  continue on.

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk

The gmo labeling push has a ton of support from the mainstream left. The anti vaccination crowd is a little more extreme.

The GMO labs in Kauai have had to install razor wire and armed guards to keep the wackos out. You see anti-GMO signs in front yards around the island.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: slobber on May 22, 2014, 10:59:39 AM
It is speculated that anti GMO's have purposefully pollinated non-GMO crops with GMO's in order to further their argument.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on May 22, 2014, 11:33:51 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/22/politics/steyer-climate-change-campaign/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 (http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/22/politics/steyer-climate-change-campaign/index.html?hpt=hp_t2)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: slobber on May 22, 2014, 12:01:03 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/22/politics/steyer-climate-change-campaign/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 (http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/22/politics/steyer-climate-change-campaign/index.html?hpt=hp_t2)
You didn't believe it when I quoted that story from FOXNEWS? I mean, I don't think they make up the quotes.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 22, 2014, 12:04:18 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/22/politics/steyer-climate-change-campaign/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 (http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/22/politics/steyer-climate-change-campaign/index.html?hpt=hp_t2)

Typical liberal hypocrisy.  "I made my money, screw the rest of you!"
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: slobber on May 22, 2014, 12:07:34 PM
Quote
"Our goal is very clear: to impact the politics as it relates to climate in a time period that will result in policies that allow our country and the world to avoid the perils of climate change," said Chris Lehane, a Democratic strategist advising the super PAC. "In a sense, it's a race against time."

This will surely help decide the issue and provide clear solutions, right?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/22/environmentalist-super-pac-to-spend-100m-to-back-democrats-in-senate-races/?intcmp=latestnews (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/22/environmentalist-super-pac-to-spend-100m-to-back-democrats-in-senate-races/?intcmp=latestnews)
I don't like being completely overlooked. :cry:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 22, 2014, 12:08:24 PM
Progressive mindset dictates that Steyer ='s Good   Koch ='s Bad

We won't even mention the fact that Steyer made his billions on the back of fossil fuels.

Now he's clearly hedging his bets on the other side of the fence in order to put more money in his pocket.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on May 22, 2014, 12:12:14 PM
I think all super-PAC's are pretty awful.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 22, 2014, 12:17:45 PM
Quote
"Our goal is very clear: to impact the politics as it relates to climate in a time period that will result in policies that allow our country and the world to avoid the perils of climate change," said Chris Lehane, a Democratic strategist advising the super PAC. "In a sense, it's a race against time."

This will surely help decide the issue and provide clear solutions, right?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/22/environmentalist-super-pac-to-spend-100m-to-back-democrats-in-senate-races/?intcmp=latestnews (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/22/environmentalist-super-pac-to-spend-100m-to-back-democrats-in-senate-races/?intcmp=latestnews)
I don't like being completely overlooked. :cry:

You can't post Fox News links here. The libs won't read it.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on May 22, 2014, 12:26:33 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/22/politics/steyer-climate-change-campaign/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 (http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/22/politics/steyer-climate-change-campaign/index.html?hpt=hp_t2)
You didn't believe it when I quoted that story from FOXNEWS? I mean, I don't think they make up the quotes.

DNR, sorry Dobbs.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on May 22, 2014, 12:27:33 PM
To be fair, I rarely click links here.  I wait until ppl post the story.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: slobber on May 22, 2014, 12:31:04 PM
To be fair, I rarely click links here.  I wait until ppl post the story.
YOU POSTED A LINK!!!!  (I'm "just jk", you know?)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 22, 2014, 12:51:48 PM
The U.S. is clearly on a path of CO2 reduction (unlike Russia, China, India), and the U.S. clearly does not need any type of radicalized policy in order to continue down the path of CO2 reduction (and the most interesting thing is, the true scientists are saying that there's no way it can be definitively said that C02 is causing climate change.   Or they are saying that IF C02 is causing climate change or climate forcing they are still years away at best, and may likely never understand the full extent of the impact of C02 emissions on the climate.  At the end of the day, real scientists say again and again in peer reviewed paper after paper they simply don't know, and that the science is far from settled and many scoff at the notion of a "settled science"). 

The following article by Roger Pielke a climate and atmospheric scientist of some renown and a believer that man made emissions are impacting the environment (like most of us, duh) excoriates John Holdren, one of the senior science advisers for the Obama Administration.   I will say that I absolutely disagree with Pielke's call for additional taxes to mitigate the impact of man made emissions, because the things that emit the speculated harmful gasses are already taxed at extremely high levels.  But back to the article, Pielke attacks the claim that AGW is causing an increase in substantial climate/weather events like floods, storms etc. etc.   Or in other words, normal weather events are being exaggerated and politicized for the advancement of a political movement, and Pielke is saying there's no way such a claim can be made at this time based on the best information available.   Peilke is one of a few experts who are are attempting to stay above the environmental political agenda, unfortunately everytime Peilke (or similar) speaks out, along comes some government cheeser dining at the trough of government largess to shout them down. 

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116887/does-climate-change-cause-extreme-weather-i-said-no-and-was-attacked
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on May 22, 2014, 12:56:52 PM
To be fair, I rarely click links here.  I wait until ppl post the story.
YOU POSTED A LINK!!!!  (I'm "just jk", you know?)

We are all hypocrites.  Don't you read FSD's stuff?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on May 22, 2014, 01:25:37 PM
At the end of the day, real scientists say again and again in peer reviewed paper after paper they simply don't know, and that the science is far from settled and many scoff at the notion of a "settled science"). 


I think the "science is settled" talking point (which mostly comes in a mocking tone from the right) is referring to the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect isn't disputed by any legitimate scientists, but you're correct that the full extent of the human impact on the greenhouse effect will likely never be fully understood or predictable. It's just too complex.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 22, 2014, 01:46:56 PM
At the end of the day, real scientists say again and again in peer reviewed paper after paper they simply don't know, and that the science is far from settled and many scoff at the notion of a "settled science"). 


I think the "science is settled" talking point (which mostly comes in a mocking tone from the right) is referring to the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect isn't disputed by any legitimate scientists, but you're correct that the full extent of the human impact on the greenhouse effect will likely never be fully understood or predictable. It's just too complex.

The various iterations of the "Science is settled" typically come from the left, they are then seized upon by the right to point out the absurdity of a settled scientific matter when it relates to something as complex as the climate.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on May 22, 2014, 01:52:03 PM
At the end of the day, real scientists say again and again in peer reviewed paper after paper they simply don't know, and that the science is far from settled and many scoff at the notion of a "settled science"). 


I think the "science is settled" talking point (which mostly comes in a mocking tone from the right) is referring to the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect isn't disputed by any legitimate scientists, but you're correct that the full extent of the human impact on the greenhouse effect will likely never be fully understood or predictable. It's just too complex.

The various iterations of the "Science is settled" typically come from the left, they are then seized upon by the right to point out the absurdity of a settled scientific matter when it relates to something as complex as the climate.



the seizure of phrases such as this make it impossible to take anyone using it that way seriously.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on May 22, 2014, 01:52:41 PM
I've only ever heard "the science is settled" from ksu and Dax types
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: WillieWatanabe on May 22, 2014, 01:59:57 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/8YbZ8cv.gif)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 22, 2014, 02:12:51 PM
At the end of the day, real scientists say again and again in peer reviewed paper after paper they simply don't know, and that the science is far from settled and many scoff at the notion of a "settled science"). 


I think the "science is settled" talking point (which mostly comes in a mocking tone from the right) is referring to the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect isn't disputed by any legitimate scientists, but you're correct that the full extent of the human impact on the greenhouse effect will likely never be fully understood or predictable. It's just too complex.

The various iterations of the "Science is settled" typically come from the left, they are then seized upon by the right to point out the absurdity of a settled scientific matter when it relates to something as complex as the climate.



the seizure of phrases such as this make it impossible to take anyone using it that way seriously.

But I or many like me would never use the phrase the "science is settled" if it hadn't been used for years (at this point) but AGW proponents.    If you haven't seen the usage of that phrase again and again by AGW proponents then you must not have been paying very close attention for very long.

The scientific consensus on whether human beings are causing global climate change is largely settled – we are causing it.

Read more: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/harford/belair/ph-ag-david-ppt-column-0514-20140512,0,5271320.story#ixzz32TOAiEzF

You can find statements of this type littering news articles, journals, lectures etc. etc. spanning back years.

The debate on climate change is settled: it is here, it is human-caused, and it is already having a devastating impact on our communities, but we need to accelerate the level of political support to address this critical issue before it’s too late,” Fossil Fuel Billionaire Tom Steyer, now trying to become Green Energy multi-billionaire.

It took all of about 1 minute to find two examples. 


Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on May 22, 2014, 02:23:37 PM
I understand why you repeat it over and over and over....do you understand why your constant use of the phrase makes you look like an idiot that can't participate in a rational conversation?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 22, 2014, 02:32:52 PM
I understand why you repeat it over and over and over....do you understand why your constant use of the phrase makes you look like an idiot that can't participate in a rational conversation?

LOL, I use it because I know it bothers people like you, because the entire notion is simply absurd and it is uttered again and again and again by AGW propagandists who use it like a verbal sledgehammer in an attempt to shout down anyone who disagrees with them. 

One of the very latest examples is a duplicitous billionaire who no doubt has a legion of AGW propagandists standing behind him waving the pom-poms every step of the way. 

The science is settled phrase has been a cornerstone of the effort of AGW propagandists (and by some of the biggest AGW propagandists in the business no less) to silence critics for years. 

But the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact."  (I'll give the president the benefit in that he meant AGW Climate Change and didn't mean the generic term: Climate.   Because if he mean just climate and that's it's changing, then that's just like saying water is wet) Pres. Obama State of the Union 2014

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: steve dave on May 22, 2014, 02:34:46 PM
that would make sense if someone here you were responding to was saying that over and over
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 22, 2014, 02:39:03 PM
that would make sense if someone here you were responding to was saying that over and over

It's perfectly applicable to the discussion of the topic, when our own political leaders  and so called leading scientists and pundits toss around the words of "settled" "debate is over" "fact" again and again.   

You're just bothered by how ridiculous their espousal's really are.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: steve dave on May 22, 2014, 02:40:10 PM
that would make sense if someone here you were responding to was saying that over and over

It's perfectly applicable to the discussion of the topic, when our own political leaders  and so called leading scientists and pundits toss around the words of "settled" "debate is over" "fact" again and again.   

You're just bothered by how ridiculous their espousal's really are.

ok
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on May 22, 2014, 03:02:24 PM
The thing is, I agree with the fact that "Science is settled" is a ridiculous statement when there is no further information attached to it.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on May 22, 2014, 03:23:22 PM
The thing is, I agree with the fact that "Science is settled" is a ridiculous statement when there is no further information attached to it.

it's a stupid talking point.  the oliver clip was slightly funny, but Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).  the science is not at all settled.  saying that it is a "fact" is almost as inaccurate as denying that the great preponderance of evidence from multiple sources and lines of investigation suggest that co2 and other human-source greenhouse gases have caused a rapid global-scale climatic warming trend.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 22, 2014, 03:23:32 PM
I've only ever heard "the science is settled" from ksu and Dax types

Looks like we've found ourselves a denier.  Get 'em!!!
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on May 22, 2014, 05:19:49 PM
I understand why you repeat it over and over and over....do you understand why your constant use of the phrase makes you look like an idiot that can't participate in a rational conversation?

LOL, I use it because I know it bothers people like you, because the entire notion is simply absurd and it is uttered again and again and again by AGW propagandists who use it like a verbal sledgehammer in an attempt to shout down anyone who disagrees with them. 

One of the very latest examples is a duplicitous billionaire who no doubt has a legion of AGW propagandists standing behind him waving the pom-poms every step of the way. 

The science is settled phrase has been a cornerstone of the effort of AGW propagandists (and by some of the biggest AGW propagandists in the business no less) to silence critics for years. 

But the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact."  (I'll give the president the benefit in that he meant AGW Climate Change and didn't mean the generic term: Climate.   Because if he mean just climate and that's it's changing, then that's just like saying water is wet) Pres. Obama State of the Union 2014

only bad if they are stupid libs  :shakesfist:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 23, 2014, 07:30:28 AM
The thing is, I agree with the fact that "Science is settled" is a ridiculous statement when there is no further information attached to it.

it's a stupid talking point.  the oliver clip was slightly funny, but Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).  the science is not at all settled.  saying that it is a "fact" is almost as inaccurate as denying that the great preponderance of evidence from multiple sources and lines of investigation suggest that co2 and other human-source greenhouse gases have caused a rapid global-scale climatic warming trend.

 :D
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: steve dave on May 23, 2014, 09:42:20 AM
lol wut

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/20/pat-sajak-climate-change_n_5358656.html
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: illBisonYourdele on May 23, 2014, 10:08:33 AM
Climate change spending is already more than one Manhattan Project every year (or 7 times DARPA annual budget)
 

(http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_14008574978826&key=a935c4a36a211cf475f748cf8958ae08&libId=4d74208f-8b89-4101-9532-99dcae194673&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fnextbigfuture.com%2F2014%2F05%2Fclimate-change-spending-is-already-more.html&v=1&out=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-mFIts9_Ue1Q%2FU36SZS5he2I%2FAAAAAAAAvf8%2Fs-QQ0ygfALw%2Fs1600%2FUSclimatechangespend.png&ref=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedly.com%2F&title=Climate%20change%20spending%20is%20already%20more%20than%20one%20Manhattan%20project%20every%20year%20or%207%20times%20DARPA%20annual%20budget&txt=)

IPCC wants almost a trillion per year to be spent through 2030 and then to increase spending to over a trillion per year.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/05/climate-change-spending-is-already-more.html
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Panjandrum on May 23, 2014, 10:12:28 AM
lol wut

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/20/pat-sajak-climate-change_n_5358656.html

I like to imagine that Pat Sajak as one that spends his days drunk and pantsless, reading the Drudge, and then going to Tweet about it.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 23, 2014, 10:56:06 AM
World Drought Status for the last 30 years:

(http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/sdata20141-f51.jpg)

 D0 (yellow) = abnormally dry; D1 (orange) = moderate drought, D4 (red) is extreme drought.

http://www.nature.com/articles/sdata20141
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 23, 2014, 06:34:15 PM
There has been a lot of talk about the western antarctic ice sheet melting while the rest of Antarctica is under record ice, which nobody has been able to explain other than global warming may be causing more wind and warm water currents, but that's just a guess.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/131118-antarctica-volcano-earthquakes-erupt-sea-level-rise-science/ (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/131118-antarctica-volcano-earthquakes-erupt-sea-level-rise-science/)

Quote
A newly discovered volcano found buried beneath a thick layer of ice in Antarctica could speed up ice loss and raise global sea levels when it erupts, scientists say.

The finding, detailed in the current issue of Nature Geoscience, marks the first time that an active volcano has been discovered under the ice of the frozen continent.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on June 01, 2014, 12:46:47 AM
There has been a lot of talk about the western antarctic ice sheet melting while the rest of Antarctica is under record ice.


http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27465050
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 01, 2014, 08:46:52 AM
I want to state up front that we have been living through a warming trend driven by a
variety of influences. However, it is my view that this is not unusual, and contrary to the
characterizations by the IPCC and the National Climate Assessment, these environmental
changes are not apocalyptic nor irreversible.
2. My biggest concern is that both the reports present a number of speculative, and sometimes
incomplete, conclusions embedded in language that gives them more scientific heft than they
deserve. The reports are "scientific-sounding" rather than based on clearly settled facts or admitting
their lack. Established facts about the global environment exist less often in science than laymen
usually think.
3. HAS IT BEEN WARMING? Yes, we have been living through a warming trend, no doubt about
that. The rate of change we are experiencing is also not unprecedented, and the “mystery” of the
warming “plateau” simply indicates the inherent complexity of our global biosphere. Change is
normal, life on Earth is inherently risky; it always has been. The two reports, however, makes it
seem that environmental change is apocalyptic and irreversible. It is not.

---------------------------------------------------------------

The concerns I have mentioned with the IPCC apply as well to the White
House's National Climate Assessment. I reviewed and provided comments on the
draft White House's National Climate assessment and, unfortunately, it appears that
these issues have not been addressed in the final assessment. For example, I stated:
 "The executive summary is a political statement, not a scientific statement. It is filled
with misstatements contradicted by well-established and well-known scientific papers."
 "Climate has always affected people and all life on Earth, so it isn't new to say it is
'already affecting the American people.' This is just a political statement."
 "It is inappropriate to use short-term changes in weather as an indication one way or
another about persistent climate change


http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-113-SY-WState-DBotkin-20140529.pdf
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 01, 2014, 08:49:16 AM
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2014/20140529-14-P-0270.pdf
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 01, 2014, 11:33:07 PM
Good news everyone, Obama intends to impose new EPA regulations drastically reducing CO2 emissions. I don't know about you, but I'm happy to pay much higher electric bills just in case the catastrophic AGW theory is actually is true, despite all observations to the contrary. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-02/obama-said-to-propose-deep-cuts-to-power-plant-emissions.html (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-02/obama-said-to-propose-deep-cuts-to-power-plant-emissions.html)

And more good news, somewhat related: remember all the doom and gloom about declining polar bear populations due to AGW? Turns out, that story wasn't just wrong - it was a fraud from the very start. The science is settled, until it isn't. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/05/scientist_confesses_he_made_up_polar_bear_population_estimates.html (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/05/scientist_confesses_he_made_up_polar_bear_population_estimates.html)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on June 02, 2014, 12:48:39 AM
And more good news, somewhat related: remember all the doom and gloom about declining polar bear populations due to AGW? Turns out, that story wasn't just wrong - it was a fraud from the very start. The science is settled, until it isn't. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/05/scientist_confesses_he_made_up_polar_bear_population_estimates.html (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/05/scientist_confesses_he_made_up_polar_bear_population_estimates.html)

it's so hard for me to tell if most people are just normally completely incapable of approaching even really, really simple science or if you're especially stupid.  i actually think it's the former.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 02, 2014, 08:10:33 AM
And more good news, somewhat related: remember all the doom and gloom about declining polar bear populations due to AGW? Turns out, that story wasn't just wrong - it was a fraud from the very start. The science is settled, until it isn't. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/05/scientist_confesses_he_made_up_polar_bear_population_estimates.html (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/05/scientist_confesses_he_made_up_polar_bear_population_estimates.html)

it's so hard for me to tell if most people are just normally completely incapable of approaching even really, really simple science or if you're especially stupid.  i actually think it's the former.

No, I just read the article and the email, wherein the "scientist" admitted that his dwindling polar bear population claim was nothing more than a not-so-educated guess crafted to "satisfy public demand." But you know what they say, you can lead a libtard to information, but you can't make him think.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 02, 2014, 12:43:33 PM
EPA set to put sweeping new restrictions in place, even though the GAO has concluded they're using flawed data.

Politics and control trumps the right thing to do every time.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on June 02, 2014, 04:13:21 PM
And more good news, somewhat related: remember all the doom and gloom about declining polar bear populations due to AGW? Turns out, that story wasn't just wrong - it was a fraud from the very start. The science is settled, until it isn't. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/05/scientist_confesses_he_made_up_polar_bear_population_estimates.html (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/05/scientist_confesses_he_made_up_polar_bear_population_estimates.html)

it's so hard for me to tell if most people are just normally completely incapable of approaching even really, really simple science or if you're especially stupid.  i actually think it's the former.

No, I just read the article and the email, wherein the "scientist" admitted that his dwindling polar bear population claim was nothing more than a not-so-educated guess crafted to "satisfy public demand." But you know what they say, you can lead a libtard to information, but you can't make him think.

odd that you start your reply with "no", then go on to agree with everything i posted.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 02, 2014, 04:53:14 PM
Quote
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, immediately reducing all U.S. CO2 emissions would reduce global temperatures by .08 C by 2050.

I mean, what are we even trying to do here?  I guess China told the world to go eff themselves, and the libtards jumped at the opportunity.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on June 02, 2014, 05:03:34 PM
Yes, the goal should be that everything be back to ideal tomorrow.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 02, 2014, 05:27:33 PM
What is ideal?

Almost 18 straight years with no Global Warming.

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-7ScXmwsVmh4/U2YdDk8-OoI/AAAAAAAAjHk/-AGKJTaFvWw/s800/17years9months.png)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on June 02, 2014, 06:00:07 PM
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-7ScXmwsVmh4/U2YdDk8-OoI/AAAAAAAAjHk/-AGKJTaFvWw/s800/17years9months.png)

what a strange desktop picture
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on June 02, 2014, 06:03:09 PM
What is ideal?



A denier in the white house, amirite?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 02, 2014, 06:29:28 PM
What is ideal?



A denier in the white house, amirite?

Or an administration that doesn't politicize an agency to make sweeping changes based information that's been audited by the GAO and found flawed.

Not difficult.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 02, 2014, 07:30:48 PM
Yes, the goal should be that everything be back to ideal tomorrow.

Wut? Eliminating ALL carbon emissions is a realistic goal?  Good lawd, we in troubs.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 03, 2014, 08:26:14 AM
I still can't believe that Dax doesn't know how to read that graph. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 03, 2014, 09:18:16 AM
I still can't believe any deviation from baseline is characterized as an anomaly on all these graphs.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 03, 2014, 02:21:13 PM
I still can't believe that Dax doesn't know how to read that graph.

I know how to read that graph.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on June 03, 2014, 03:34:09 PM
I still can't believe that Dax doesn't know how to read that graph.

I would like a detailed explanation. Michcat and beems can jump in here if they like.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on June 03, 2014, 05:27:47 PM
I still can't believe that Dax doesn't know how to read that graph.

I would like a detailed explanation. Michcat and beems can jump in here if they like.

The graph shows warming, even if it's slight. The amount of warming depends on how the anomaly is calculated (which isn't on that guy's desktop for some reason).

Regardless, it's a terrible example of cherry-picking data (something folks on both sides do plenty).
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on June 03, 2014, 05:44:27 PM
I still can't believe that Dax doesn't know how to read that graph.

I would like a detailed explanation. Michcat and beems can jump in here if they like.

The graph shows warming, even if it's slight. The amount of warming depends on how the anomaly is calculated (which isn't on that guy's desktop for some reason).

Regardless, it's a terrible example of cherry-picking data (something folks on both sides do plenty).

still makes me lol everytime i see it just thinking about some dude screen shotting his desktop  :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 03, 2014, 09:20:58 PM
Regardless of what the data shows, I think we can all  :lol: at the idea of fitting it with a horizontal line and declaring no change.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 03, 2014, 09:56:14 PM
You guys calling remote sensing systems liars?

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on June 03, 2014, 11:40:39 PM
Regardless of what the data shows, I think we can all  :lol: at the idea of fitting it with a horizontal line and declaring no change.

The only way to tell is to do the math.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: husserl on June 04, 2014, 07:08:04 AM
(http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator_2012_1024.gif)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 04, 2014, 08:34:07 AM
Skeptical Science are noted cherry pickers and as MichCat would said, just like everyone else.



Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on June 04, 2014, 09:30:50 AM
How alarmists see global warming:

(http://futurepath.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/800px-Satellite_Temperatures.png)

How realists see global warming:

(http://i.imgur.com/V2laBnK.png)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on June 06, 2014, 08:45:15 AM
92% chance of a moderate el Nino, so a hot summer and wet winter coming.  :)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 06, 2014, 10:58:45 AM
92% chance of a moderate el Nino, so a hot summer and wet winter coming.  :)

YES!!! (link tho?)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on June 06, 2014, 11:19:02 AM
moderate el ninos only slightly improve the odds of wet winters in the southwest.  we need a strong el nino.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on June 06, 2014, 02:20:00 PM
92% chance of a moderate el Nino, so a hot summer and wet winter coming.  :)

YES!!! (link tho?)

On CBS this morning.

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2014/06/04/declining-pelican-breeding-may-mean-wetter-california-weather-under-el-nino/ (http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2014/06/04/declining-pelican-breeding-may-mean-wetter-california-weather-under-el-nino/)

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: #LIFE on June 07, 2014, 01:04:28 AM
CASE CLOSED!  E-mail from the White House

Quote

Hi, everyone --

This past Monday, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed national limits on carbon pollution from existing power plants for the first time.

Since then, folks across the country -- on editorial boards, in classrooms, on front porches -- have been weighing in on why this is so important. And with that in mind, here's something I want to make clear:

We’re already experiencing the effects of climate change today -- but don't just think about this proposed rule in terms of the country we're living in right now. Think about the one we and our children are going to be living in by 2030.

Thanks to these limits, that country will have a 30 percent reduction in carbon pollution from the power sector. It will also have 25 percent less smog and soot, meaning children will have an estimated 150,000 fewer asthma attacks each year -- and they'll miss an estimated 180,000 fewer days of school. Americans across the board will have up to 3,300 fewer heart attacks a year.

And now that the rule has been proposed, you can participate in the process.

Right now, we're accepting comments from the public about the proposed power plant rule.

So if you've got something to say, you can submit a public comment here.

And if you want to get some more details about why this is good for the environment and public health -- or spread the word about why it's a big deal -- you can take a look at this infographic, and then pass it on.

Right now, we're in the process of developing the policies that will keep our planet clean and our kids healthy for years to come.

You can participate in that process right now. So if you've got a comment, you can make it here.

Thanks,

Administrator Gina McCarthy
 Environmental Protection Agency

 :facepalm:
 


Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 07, 2014, 01:17:11 PM
The EPA seems to be more of a special interest group and progressive mouthpiece than a government agency .
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 08, 2014, 01:04:34 PM
Most of the papers they studied are not about climate change and its causes, but many were taken as evidence nonetheless. Papers on carbon taxes naturally assume that carbon dioxide emissions cause global warming – but assumptions are not conclusions. Cook’s claim of an increasing consensus over time is entirely due to an increase of the number of irrelevant papers that Cook and co mistook for evidence.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming

Consensus is irrelevant in science. There are plenty of examples in history where everyone agreed and everyone was wrong. Cook’s consensus is also irrelevant in policy. They try to show that climate change is real and human-made. It is does not follow whether and by how much greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ChiCat on June 08, 2014, 01:11:17 PM
Most of the papers they studied are not about climate change and its causes, but many were taken as evidence nonetheless. Papers on carbon taxes naturally assume that carbon dioxide emissions cause global warming – but assumptions are not conclusions. Cook’s claim of an increasing consensus over time is entirely due to an increase of the number of irrelevant papers that Cook and co mistook for evidence.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming

Consensus is irrelevant in science. There are plenty of examples in history where everyone agreed and everyone was wrong. Cook’s consensus is also irrelevant in policy. They try to show that climate change is real and human-made. It is does not follow whether and by how much greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced.


Please tell me your argument isn't "because scientists have been wrong before we should just ignore them"

Reminds me of the dumbass belief that some people have on the football board that because player X was a two star and successful, every two star is going to be just as successful.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 08, 2014, 01:26:26 PM
Most of the papers they studied are not about climate change and its causes, but many were taken as evidence nonetheless. Papers on carbon taxes naturally assume that carbon dioxide emissions cause global warming – but assumptions are not conclusions. Cook’s claim of an increasing consensus over time is entirely due to an increase of the number of irrelevant papers that Cook and co mistook for evidence.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming

Consensus is irrelevant in science. There are plenty of examples in history where everyone agreed and everyone was wrong. Cook’s consensus is also irrelevant in policy. They try to show that climate change is real and human-made. It is does not follow whether and by how much greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced.


Please tell me your argument isn't "because scientists have been wrong before we should just ignore them"

Reminds me of the dumbass belief that some people have on the football board that because player X was a two star and successful, every two star is going to be just as successful.

LOL, that's not the point of the article nor the argument.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ChiCat on June 08, 2014, 04:38:12 PM
Most of the papers they studied are not about climate change and its causes, but many were taken as evidence nonetheless. Papers on carbon taxes naturally assume that carbon dioxide emissions cause global warming – but assumptions are not conclusions. Cook’s claim of an increasing consensus over time is entirely due to an increase of the number of irrelevant papers that Cook and co mistook for evidence.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming

Consensus is irrelevant in science. There are plenty of examples in history where everyone agreed and everyone was wrong. Cook’s consensus is also irrelevant in policy. They try to show that climate change is real and human-made. It is does not follow whether and by how much greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced.


Please tell me your argument isn't "because scientists have been wrong before we should just ignore them"

Reminds me of the dumbass belief that some people have on the football board that because player X was a two star and successful, every two star is going to be just as successful.

LOL, that's not the point of the article nor the argument.



Didn't read the article but the highlighted part about ignoring consensus because its been wrong before seems to point that way
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on June 08, 2014, 05:51:05 PM
The concensus once thought the world was flat, ChiCat
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ChiCat on June 09, 2014, 10:35:05 AM
The concensus once thought the world was flat, ChiCat

Now it think the world is round, so that must be wrong too.  Also, global warming.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 09, 2014, 04:59:03 PM
So, we can't really say how much or how little CO2 emissions are impacting the environment but we're going to go ahead and impose radical, extremely expensive policies which will likely have a negative impact on the economy and make life more difficult for the working poor, elderly and those on fixed incomes (but will make a select chosen few extremely wealthy and/or much more wealthy than they already are).

 :thumbsup:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on June 09, 2014, 05:26:52 PM
So, we can't really say how much or how little CO2 emissions are impacting the environment but we're going to go ahead and impose radical, extremely expensive policies which will likely have a negative impact on the economy and make life more difficult for the working poor, elderly and those on fixed incomes (but will make a select chosen few extremely wealthy and/or much more wealthy than they already are).

 :thumbsup:

How expensive will the policies be and how much will they make life more difficult for the working poor, elderly and those on fixed incomes?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 09, 2014, 05:46:05 PM
So, we can't really say how much or how little CO2 emissions are impacting the environment but we're going to go ahead and impose radical, extremely expensive policies which will likely have a negative impact on the economy and make life more difficult for the working poor, elderly and those on fixed incomes (but will make a select chosen few extremely wealthy and/or much more wealthy than they already are).

 :thumbsup:

How expensive will the policies be and how much will they make life more difficult for the working poor, elderly and those on fixed incomes?

Here's a good start, and understand that Germany is 1/4 size of the U.S. population:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-16/merkel-s-offshore-wind-power-dream-for-germany-stalls.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/03/14/germanys-green-energy-disaster-a-cautionary-tale-for-world-leaders/

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/world/europe/merkel-offers-defense-of-her-policy-on-energy.html?_r=0


The price of energy will go up, unless there's massive government subsidies, someone has to pay for the subsidies, so there's going to be increased costs inputted into the system and passed down to the consumer one way or the other.


Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on June 09, 2014, 05:52:04 PM
The price of energy will go up, unless there's massive government subsidies, someone has to pay for the subsidies, so there's going to be increased costs inputted into the system and passed down to the consumer one way or the other.

I get all that, but you don't seem to know exactly how much costs will increase. (or even come close to estimating the costs to consumers).
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 09, 2014, 05:57:16 PM
The price of energy will go up, unless there's massive government subsidies, someone has to pay for the subsidies, so there's going to be increased costs inputted into the system and passed down to the consumer one way or the other.

I get all that, but you don't seem to know exactly how much costs will increase. (or even come close to estimating the costs to consumers).

The EPA's proposal didn't include these numbers?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 09, 2014, 05:58:11 PM
The price of energy will go up, unless there's massive government subsidies, someone has to pay for the subsidies, so there's going to be increased costs inputted into the system and passed down to the consumer one way or the other.

I get all that, but you don't seem to know exactly how much costs will increase. (or even come close to estimating the costs to consumers).

Wow, because Is said the price will go up means I know exactly how much they're going to up?  Sounds like you just don't like the message cRusty.

One of the world's largest economies went almost all in on green energy and had/has some of the highest if not highest energy rates of the G7 or G6 or G8 (whatever is is now) countries.  Would have been even higher if not for massive gov't subsidies.   I'd say that's a pretty good model to go off of.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on June 09, 2014, 06:11:47 PM
The price of energy will go up, unless there's massive government subsidies, someone has to pay for the subsidies, so there's going to be increased costs inputted into the system and passed down to the consumer one way or the other.

I get all that, but you don't seem to know exactly how much costs will increase. (or even come close to estimating the costs to consumers).

Wow, because Is said the price will go up means I know exactly how much they're going to up?  Sounds like you just don't like the message cRusty.

I recognize there will be uncertainty with how much cost to consumers will go up, just like I realize there is uncertainty with how much CO2 emissions affect climate.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 09, 2014, 06:13:50 PM
The price of energy will go up, unless there's massive government subsidies, someone has to pay for the subsidies, so there's going to be increased costs inputted into the system and passed down to the consumer one way or the other.

I get all that, but you don't seem to know exactly how much costs will increase. (or even come close to estimating the costs to consumers).

Wow, because Is said the price will go up means I know exactly how much they're going to up?  Sounds like you just don't like the message cRusty.

I recognize there will be uncertainty with how much cost to consumers will go up, just like I realize there is uncertainty with how much CO2 emissions affect climate.

We have a pretty definitive guide on the impact on consumers.   Unless you're trying to say that climate is as easy to predict as economics.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on June 09, 2014, 06:21:20 PM
We have a pretty definitive guide on the impact on consumers.   Unless you're trying to say that climate is as easy to predict as economics.

Germany's situation is not a "pretty definitive guide", when compared to the US. Are you just referring to the reduction of Coal Emissions recently proposed? Or just a bunch of vague "policies"?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 09, 2014, 06:36:23 PM
We have a pretty definitive guide on the impact on consumers.   Unless you're trying to say that climate is as easy to predict as economics.

Germany's situation is not a "pretty definitive guide", when compared to the US. Are you just referring to the reduction of Coal Emissions recently proposed? Or just a bunch of vague "policies"?

So let me get this straight.    In Germany they had some of the, if not the highest electrical rates in the industrialized world BECAUSE of their green energy policies.    Yet that doesn't serve as a guide as to what will likely happen in the United States?   I mean really, nothing short of a paradigm changing break through in green energy technology will allow for any avoidance of the same fate if the United States heads down the same path as Germany.

At this juncture I don't even get the point you're trying to make.   Better regroup.



Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on June 09, 2014, 06:45:19 PM
We have a pretty definitive guide on the impact on consumers.   Unless you're trying to say that climate is as easy to predict as economics.

Germany's situation is not a "pretty definitive guide", when compared to the US. Are you just referring to the reduction of Coal Emissions recently proposed? Or just a bunch of vague "policies"?

So let me get this straight.    In Germany they had some of the, if not the highest electrical rates in the industrialized world BECAUSE of their green energy policies.    Yet that doesn't serve as a guide as to what will likely happen in the United States? 

Correct, we aren't implementing anything close to everything Germany did.

My point is you seem to be OK with implementing no emission reductions because we don't know how much emissions affect climate, yet we don't know how much more (vague) proposed(?) policy changes would cost the average consumer. And I enjoy that.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on June 09, 2014, 06:50:21 PM
We have a pretty definitive guide on the impact on consumers.   Unless you're trying to say that climate is as easy to predict as economics.

Germany's situation is not a "pretty definitive guide", when compared to the US. Are you just referring to the reduction of Coal Emissions recently proposed? Or just a bunch of vague "policies"?

So let me get this straight.    In Germany they had some of the, if not the highest electrical rates in the industrialized world BECAUSE of their green energy policies.    Yet that doesn't serve as a guide as to what will likely happen in the United States? 

Correct, we aren't implementing anything close to everything Germany did.

My point is you seem to be OK with implementing no emission reductions because we don't know how much emissions affect climate, yet we don't know how much more (vague) proposed(?) policy changes would cost the average consumer. And I enjoy that.

This is just Obama keeping a campaign promise from 2008, "energy prices will necessarily skyrocket". I think he may have been telling the truth in this instance.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 09, 2014, 09:16:27 PM
We have a pretty definitive guide on the impact on consumers.   Unless you're trying to say that climate is as easy to predict as economics.

Germany's situation is not a "pretty definitive guide", when compared to the US. Are you just referring to the reduction of Coal Emissions recently proposed? Or just a bunch of vague "policies"?

So let me get this straight.    In Germany they had some of the, if not the highest electrical rates in the industrialized world BECAUSE of their green energy policies.    Yet that doesn't serve as a guide as to what will likely happen in the United States?   I mean really, nothing short of a paradigm changing break through in green energy technology will allow for any avoidance of the same fate if the United States heads down the same path as Germany.

At this juncture I don't even get the point you're trying to make.   Better regroup.

It has also been a disaster for Spain.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on June 09, 2014, 11:33:09 PM
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/06/28/196355493/economists-have-a-one-page-solution-to-climate-change
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 10, 2014, 08:46:07 AM
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/06/28/196355493/economists-have-a-one-page-solution-to-climate-change

As I've said before, good luck getting China and other shitty countries to comply.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on June 10, 2014, 08:49:35 AM
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/06/28/196355493/economists-have-a-one-page-solution-to-climate-change

As I've said before, good luck getting China and other shitty countries to comply.

crap, good luck getting the US to comply.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 10, 2014, 10:45:59 AM
I think that calculating the true cost of any new regulations with any certainty, let alone the sweeping changes being proposed, is not really possible. Common sense tells me it will cost a lot in both hard dollars and productivity.

But it's even more ethereal to predict the impact of these regulations on climate. We don't even know that a warmer climate is even a bad thing on the whole - there are studies to the contrary - let alone whether such regulations would have any impact whatsoever. Common sense tells me it would have little to no impact.

But I don't need to rely on just common sense. Somebody posted somewhere that all the models predicted significant global warming over the last 20 years, and all these models were wrong. Despite pumping greater and greater amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, warming has stalled. Hurricanes and other severe weather are at near record lulls. Our planet doesn't really seem to give two shits about what we do. Life goes on.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on June 10, 2014, 02:49:08 PM
it's not really all that hard to predict the impact of the proposed epa rules.  they establish the baseline with 2005 emissions.  we're down 12% from 2005 already, so the proposal is really nothing more than maintaining something fairly close to the current level of emission reductions for the next 15 years.   :runaway:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on June 10, 2014, 02:53:59 PM