Thread: The godfather of global warming lowers the boom on climate change hysteria

Originally Posted by Windigo

Yes and we have the projected range of climate models which is analogous to the cone of a hurricane forcast, including the newest and best IPCC model. Temperature has already moved outside of its range.

Thanks for illustrating my point. The temperature has been outside of the cone since 2007. 5 years is short term when it comes to climate.
HadCRUT also has limited measurements of the arctic, where warming is the greatest. Why not show all the temp data sets. Woodfortrees

The GISS data is closer to being within the cone.

Once again, the anti-AGW pick data that agrees with their agenda and ignore data that does not.

Originally Posted by Bowerbird

If this forum were as limited on space as you claim it would not have never ending "bar" threads - no this is an excuse to cherry pick. and a poor one at that

I don't know what a "never ending bar thread" is supposed to be, but I understand what you are saying. You want me to do all of the work and post whatever amount of material required to convince you that my arguement is correct. So much work to convince a single anonymous person, with no return other than "winning" an arguement, is a foolish undertaking. If you are truly interested and open, you would have already started on your own rather than wait for me to feed you data which I "cherry pick".

Originally Posted by Bowerbird

Depends on your definition of "accurate" If "accurate means "5 days from now the cyclone will be in your backyard and the winds will be exactly 195 kilometers per hour" then no we are NOT accurate but if we mean "There is a high degree of probability that the cyclone will cross the coast between 0700 and 0900 between Innisfail and Townsville" then yes there is an increasing accuracy in the models



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropica...ne_forecasting

You continue to make my point. With near perfect hindsight of hundreds (maybe thousands) of storms to refine models of hurricanes/cyclones, they are still very inaccurate at predictions more than 72 hours out. The graph from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology I previously referenced didn't go beyond 48 hours and even the 48 hour accuracy measure was sparse.

At 12 hours, location predictions are more accurate simply because the sheer inertia of the storm makes changes in such a short time difficult but there are many cases of <24 hour intensity predictions being grossly in error.

The metric for predictions is not 12 hours however. In the US, most cities have a 72 hour minimum for evacuation in the event of a hurricane. That means the 3+ day predictions have to be accurate and they frequently are not. Certainly not accurate enough for a city government to accept the cost and disruption of an evacuation with 72+ hours to go. Katrina was a perfect example.

**********
But the original point was that if the climate world with perfect data cannot predict hurricanes reliably, then why would they be able to predict the global climate with very limited data and no truth source to validate their simulation?

Multiple simulations can generate the same result, but that doesn't mean it is the correct result. Science isn't a majority rules game.

Also, being an aero expert, I can go to the lab and run a CFD simulation that tells me the pressure at any point inside a jet engine, taking into account the atmosphere, angle of attack at the inlet, turbulent flow due to the aircraft airframe, mutiple engine stages, throttle changes, ice build up, an on and on. It can predict the temperature and pressure at any point on a turbine blade spinning at thousands of rpm. Its a hugely complicated simulation with more variables than any hurricane model.

Or using a city simulation, the wind pressure on any window in the city can be calculated (thats how architects know how strong a building needs to be and they meet building codes). Think about how varied and complicated a city can be with multiple elevations, rivers, highways, green spaces. The air flow through a city changes based on day/night, cloud cover, and even is influenced by rush hour traffic through 10 lane highways. Far more complicated than a climate model or hurricane model.

Why aren't the climate and hurricane models as accurate? Same computers, same technology, equally smart people, with hurricanes they have plenty of data. The understanding is lacking. The science isn't there.

Originally Posted by Roy L

You said you saw a link to a blog, not that someone with a blog also posted the same graph from Scafetta's paper.

I repeat: where is the link to the blog? You claimed Windigo linked to a blog. Where?

LOL! It appears you have some inkling of how La Carbonostra has turned a post hoc fallacy into a threat of global Armageddon by manipulating the presentation of data.

The link that is embedded in the IMG coding for the board. The one that shows up when you hit "quote" the one that is showing in my post because I quoted Windigo and disabled the activation of the code that would have caused it to show as an image - you know I would not have thought I had to be THAT descriptive
As for my pic - beautiful illustration of how denialists will claim everything else is causing global warming BUT CO2

Specifically, this blog:

http://c3headlines.typepad.com

That's a fine illustration of how denialism almost always goes hand-in-hand with right-wing hysteria, demonstrating how denialism is almost entirely a political movement, as opposed to a scientific movement like climate science.

Scafetta is referred to as the father of climastrology. His thing is trying to find correlations between planetary alignments and warming, without showing any mechanism for why such a correlation exists. That's similar to how astrology works. His graph has major problems. It uses the wrong baseline, the wrong data set, the wrong uncertainty. When these are corrected, it looks like this.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics...getRevised.png

Dang. Fix Scafetta's errors, and the IPCC now looks really good.

Originally Posted by MannieD

Thanks for illustrating my point. The temperature has been outside of the cone since 2007. 5 years is short term when it comes to climate.
HadCRUT

Becasue the IPCC graph is based on the CRU data set. If you are going to blame someone blame the IPCC. Of course I dont' know what you would blame them for. Even the GISS admits that CRU is better than theirs becasue CRU has more coverage in the arctic.

also has limited measurements of the arctic, where warming is the greatest. Why not show all the temp data sets.

"Limited measurements in the arctic"? So what you are saying is that the GISS has more arctic stations than CRU? Is that what you are arguing? Because I would hate for posters on this board to see that you like to lie by omission. Please tell me that you mean that the GISS has has more arctic stations. Otherwise I would have to say that you are lying by omission to create a false impression. Now that wouldn't be very upfront would it? So please tell me that you mean the the GISS has more acritc station than CRU. I would have for other members on this board ot have to come to the conclusions that you tried to mislead them with cleaver omission.

The GISS data is closer to being within the cone.

Sadly for you the GISS is not the standard used by the IPCC or really anyone else of consequence for that matter, the CRU is.

Once again, the anti-AGW pick data that agrees with their agenda and ignore data that does not.

I'm not the one cherry picking here. You are. The IPCC climate model and forecast is all based on CRU not GISS. If you go to the CMIP3(the ipcc model) website looking for data it will direct you to pull the temperature record from CRU. You are clearly the one cherry picking.

Originally Posted by politicalcenter

The desert is creeping up on the capital of China.
Cattlemen lost millions in Texas and New Mexico.
Australia had a flood the size of Poland.
Millions were displaced in Pakistan from flooding.
And the list goes on... this is just off the top of my head....didn't a bunch of people die in Europe because of heat related stress in 2004?

All of which has happened before.

The sun will continue to rise and you wll begin to dread seeing it come up.

Only if he swallows the AGW Kool-Aid.

Originally Posted by Bowerbird

The link that is embedded in the IMG coding for the board. The one that shows up when you hit "quote" the one that is showing in my post because I quoted Windigo and disabled the activation of the code that would have caused it to show as an image - you know I would not have thought I had to be THAT descriptive

OK, so you admit that you lied when you claimed Windigo linked to a blog.

As for my pic - beautiful illustration of how denialists will claim everything else is causing global warming BUT CO2

No, it is a beautiful illustration of how La Carbonostra has turned a bald and quite juvenile post hoc fallacy into global hysteria.

Originally Posted by mamooth

Scafetta is referred to as the father of climastrology. His thing is trying to find correlations between planetary alignments and warming, without showing any mechanism for why such a correlation exists.

Whereas La Carbonostra's thing is trying to concoct mechanisms to rationalize the lack of observed correlations that fit its hypothesis.

That's similar to how astrology works.

No, that's a flat-out lie from you.

His graph has major problems.

Yep: it proves La Carbonostra is a scam.

It uses the wrong baseline, the wrong data set, the wrong uncertainty.

"Wrong" because they show up La Carbonostra's massive failure to account for the last decade of no warming.

When these are corrected, it looks like this.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics...getRevised.png

Dang. Fix Scafetta's errors, and the IPCC now looks really good.

No, actually, it doesn't.

Originally Posted by Roy L

No, that's a flat-out lie from you.

I'm sorry. Did I point out you're a brainless suckup to charlatans? I'll ... keep doing that, because it's funny to watch you stomp your widdle foot.

Denialists tend to be fairly predictable political cranks. They know next to nothing about the physics, statistics, history, or anything concerning this issue, but they do know how to go attack poodle on command. If nothing else, they're loyal lapdogs, and when master orders them to attack, you'll see some truly fearsome yipping and ankle biting.

Originally Posted by mamooth

Denialists tend to be fairly predictable political cranks.

Check my posting history.

They know next to nothing about the physics, statistics, history, or anything concerning this issue,

I studied physics, chemistry, geophysics (including atmospheric physics), astronomy and statistics at an internationally respected university.

but they do know how to go attack poodle on command. If nothing else, they're loyal lapdogs, and when master orders them to attack, you'll see some truly fearsome yipping and ankle biting.

<yawn>