Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, because the model says that cool areas will experience colder temperatures, making "climate change" a more precise term.
The model says...
Yeah, umm... how have "models" worked out so far?
I guess my question is... if the models are all completely off, their predictions consistently failing and them lacking any ability to hindcast, why is it they should be even considered seriously?
A scam to some, a reality to others. Do you really think that all the pollutants we put into the air doesn't affect the atmosphere. I'm sorry but I want to protect the earth for future generations.
Sure, don't we all? No one wants dirty air and water, and that is why this scam works so well.
Guess what? CO2 is naturally occurring. Don't you think that after a few billion years, the planet has become wonderfully efficient at tolerating and manipulating and controlling something as basic as CO2?
Think about it! The people running the scam get wealthy and powerful off of our taxes. The scammers control the energy, and the way we are allowed to live our lives. So while we are the ones making the sacrifices, they get to live the life of kings. The scammers never sacrifice, they live in the big houses, drive around in taxpayer funded gas guzzling limos, and corporate jets, and eat all the finest foods and drink the finest wines.
Lets just say it is a scam. You live a substandard life, with tyrants in government dictating your live style, and when you complain that the planet is still not warming up, the scammers tell you that that just proves what they are forcing you to do is working. Now be quiet, and keep paying more taxes and keep doing what you're told.
It's like duping an entire town into hiring a vampire hunter. The scammer lives the good life, free to go and do whatever he wants, while the townsfolk slave away to keep the scammer well feed and well supplied. If the townsfolk start to complain, that they sacrifice too much, and maybe their are no such things as vampires, the scammer claims the reason why no one has seen any vampires is because he is doing such a great job at keeping them away. Besides, does the town really want to take the chance that vampires might start killing their children and wives, if the scammer were to leave?
Replace vampires with wolves, or bears, or CO2, or whatever floats your boat.
New paper out, Cooks paper officially through "peer review" shown to be garbage.
Here is the funny thing though.
Quote:
Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic.
*Chuckle*
Just 0.3 % of the papers specifically endorsed that position.
Also, Cook and Nuccetelli tried to submit a new paper to the Earth System Dynamics. It was flat out rejected.
Based on the reviews and my own reading of the original and revised paper, I am
rejecting the paper in its current form. The submission is laudable in its stated goals
and in making the R source code available, but little else about the paper works as a
scientific contribution to ESD. While I think as an ESDD publication at least a discussion
was had and the existence of the R routines has been brought to the attention of the
various interested communities, the manuscript itself is not a good fit for this journal and
would need substantial further revisions before being ready (if ever) for this journal.
The problems are several fold.
Here are a couple of them:
Quote:
Second, much of the discussion in the appendix is written in an inflammatory and insufficiently supported fashion. [cont.]
Third, while much is made that so-and-so made mistakes, much of that characterization relies solely on the authors’ stated opinion. [cont.]
...
[further down]
And therein lies the real problem. The climate science community has strong theory (dating back more than a century) and good, physics-based models that underly the
attribution and prediction endeavors and these guide the interpretation of observations and their statistical characterization (i.e. what the null hypothesis is). If one ignores
that foundation as most of the studies being criticized in this submission do, then one is left with unconstrained statistical analyses or curve fitting exercises that have no
clear plausible, physically viable explanation. [cont.]
Read on in the link, it is a really humbling to them. They got slapped hard for their propaganda this time. I guess the journal didn't want to look like a fool due to their last paper. The last one is my favorite, you know... because science is "changing and evolving" you know? Its adapting and adjusting... . or so I am told. /facepalm
I guess it had too much of that Science™ in it or maybe math is "hurd" for them? Oh well, I am sure they can find someone from Nature or Science to publish them. /boggle
Their understanding of science reminds me of this:
I guess my question is... if the models are all completely off, their predictions consistently failing and them lacking any ability to hindcast, why is it they should be even considered seriously?
LOL. Questions none of these folks will ever answer. Yep the model says it so it must be true.
chicagogeorge, how do you establish the warming that occurred 16+ years ago (obviously we haven't warmed in that time) to be outside of natural variability? For instance, what makes the 1930's not man made and the 1998 warming peak man made? If you think they are both man made, how do you account for the cooling cycles in between them?
I believe that we are in a long term natural warming cycle that that began at the end of the Little Ice Age 150 years or so ago, that is also coupled with additional warming from MMGHG's. Decadal ocean cooling in the form of negative PDO and NAO's can mask long term natural and manmade warming for long periods. Last 15 years warming has stalled as a result of a cooling of the PDO. But what happens when the PDO goes positive again? More warming?
Quote:
How do you shore up the issue of C02 levels not having any relation to the warming trends we have seen in the past?
What do you mean? Are you asking can the earth go through natural warming cycles without an increase in Co2? I think so. MWP, Roman WP, Minoan WP, Holocene Optimum which was 8000 years ago all were as warm or warmer then today. However, there were other climate drivers at play then.
IMHO, co2 WILL cause additional warming. How much and how fast is the big question and it really boils down to feedback mechanisms in the climate system. I think the short term (decades) natural variations can overrun increased co2. In the long term (centuries), paleoclimate studies suggest that co2 helps push climates into different states.
Richard Alley has a good informational video called "The Biggest Control Knob" A23A
My beef is with the climate modelers who pretend that their computer forecasts are written in stone. I think most of the alarmist temperature projections for the next several decades are totally BS.
This WILL NOT happen to my state in the next 70 years regardless of how much co2 man produces
HOWEVER, I think that in within then next couple of centuries, we will find out what feedbacks are dominant. Positive or negative. On a longer timescale an increase of Co2 may indeed alter our climate dramatically.
Excuse me Mr. Sanspeur, why have you evaded responding to cook paper being only .03% consensus rather than the 97% consensus it claimed? Considering this thread started dealing with that very paper, I think it important that you make a comment on such, especially since you often link to Skeptical Science to which Cook runs as a site?
Maybe you can enlighten us on how he could be so inept to come up with 97%? Maybe you could also comment on his recent paper I just provided a post on to which it was shown to be propaganda garbage that the journal wouldn't even touch for the reasons they cited above?
What? What is that? Going to claim they are all paid buh.. buh.. buh by the oil industry? Going to link us some more Hansen papers who also was showed to be activist propaganda garbage? Please, swoon for us how Hansen is a "weal scientist" and all.
Looking forward to your posts about science and all... /facepalm
Though considering you just tapped out with your comment to MTAtech and the fact that the last few responses I have made to your information directly asking questions to its position, well... it is obvious this is another thread where you bow your head in shame and walk away because you weren't able to hot link and talking point your way out of it.
Yep, better to throw up your hands, call everyone who disagrees unreasonable and then walk away. It seems to be working wonders for those advocating CAGW in the field.
I believe that we are in a long term natural warming cycle that that began at the end of the Little Ice Age 150 years or so ago, that is also coupled with additional warming from MMGHG's. Decadal ocean cooling in the form of negative PDO and NAO's can mask long term natural and manmade warming for long periods. Last 15 years warming has stalled as a result of a cooling of the PDO. But what happens when the PDO goes positive again? More warming?
Fair assessment. I don't agree or disagree as there are still many factors to be isolated to establish and specific causation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagogeorge
What do you mean? Are you asking can the earth go through natural warming cycles without an increase in Co2? I think so. MWP, Roman WP, Minoan WP, Holocene Optimum which was 8000 years ago all were as warm or warmer then today. However, there were other climate drivers at play then.
Well, it was more of a question concerning some research (honestly I may have mistaken your responses as being pushing for a given bias, my apologies if that isn't the case) as you can see with the video that was provided by Sans, it was selecting the sub warming trend points and attempting to suggest relation to CO2 (which Hansen strongly believes), but he fails to assess the issues of the 1930's warming trend in relation. I wasn't sure if you were on that side of the debate so I was interested in how you would explain the differences between the two in terms of specifying one as "natural variation" and the other "CO2 caused".
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagogeorge
IMHO, co2 WILL cause additional warming. How much and how fast is the big question and it really boils down to feedback mechanisms in the climate system. I think the short term (decades) natural variations can overrun increased co2. In the long term (centuries), paleoclimate studies suggest that co2 helps push climates into different states.
It may, and I do believe it does contribute to warming, though there are some assumptions out there that it may have a capping point in terms of that contribution, assumptions none the less. What about the studies concerning the lag factor of CO2? That it does not precede warming, rather that it succeeds it? What is your opinion on that fact concerning reality of its role within the system?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagogeorge
Richard Alley has a good informational video called "The Biggest Control Knob" A23A
Thanks, I will take a peek.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagogeorge
My beef is with the climate modelers who pretend that their computer forecasts are written in stone. I think most of the alarmist temperature projections for the next several decades are totally BS.
No argument here. I think too many disciplines these days have become lazy opting for statistical hokum to shore up the failings in a given hypothesis. It is the Drake equation all over again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagogeorge
This WILL NOT happen to my state in the next 70 years regardless of how much co2 man produces
HOWEVER, I think that in within then next couple of centuries, we will find out what feedbacks are dominant. Positive or negative. On a longer timescale an increase of Co2 may indeed alter our climate dramatically.
That is the interesting question. C02 may certainly have a role to play, though the elusive positive feedback aspect is still "elusive" while negative feedbacks show some promise as a hypothesis.
In the end, we certainly need a lot more study on the issue, though the way these fields are operating with the heavy influx of politics, I am concerned if science will prevail. It is like the medical research industry, too many hands in the cookie jar and everyone is fighting to insure they have space regardless of how that space is obtained.
A scam to some, a reality to others. Do you really think that all the pollutants we put into the air doesn't affect the atmosphere. I'm sorry but I want to protect the earth for future generations.
so do it PRIVATELY and don't impose it on everybody
Absolutely, because fossil fuel is a finite source of energy.
no, it is not
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
