The New Climate Reality

This is a simple failure of understanding the ways that exist for dealing with reality.

When there are stupendous volumes of collected data one can not just chart it! It just doesn't work that way. And, that kind of data volume is highly important in assuring that errors in measurement are detected or dampened out.

Modeling is absolutely required. In fact, there are models for specific measuring tools, for various locations, etc., as there is a ton known about test sites and tools.

Maybe you were just worried about projections of the future. BUT, ALL projections of the future are based on models - regardless of whether a computer is involved and regardless of whether it is climate, or where the moon will be, or what the weather forecaster says, etc.

Even if you are just making your own projection, it is an application of what you have learned over time - a model.

Sorry for the length here, but this "it's a model" thing really needs to die. It's as ridiculous as suggesting science should die, because it involves thinking.

 

Sure.
Scientist’s Confession: Climate “Models Have “Serious Flaws”… Confident Others Will Speak Up On “Fraudulent Claims”
By P Gosselin on 14. September 2019

Now in English… An eye-opener book by Japanese MIT climate scientist now partly available in English at Kindle. MIT climate scientist Dr. Mototaka Nakamura’s writes global warming data are “untrustworthy”, “falsified”. Image: http://iprc.soest.hawaii.edu/ Not long ago we reported on a recently released book authored by Dr. Mototaka Nakamura, a scientist who received his doctorate from MIT […]

 

You quoted:
"Global warming is global. Some places have seen warming over the past 40 years (e.g. Arctic), but other places have not. Antarctica definitely has not been playing along with the man-made global warming hoax."

THAT is what my post was about, and I stand behind what I said about it.

 

Then stop claiming "global" warming.

 

Anyone not interested and denies climate change obviously is not about to do any research that might be inconvenient.

 

This is not a refutation of what I said. Models are the ONLY solution to the issues of analyzing the body of data we collect on a daily basis.

There are thousands upon thousands of models involving data related to climate.

This one book you cite includes the line:
"The most obvious and egregious problem is the treatment of incoming solar energy — it is treated as a constant, that is, as a “never changing quantity"

Maybe there are models somewhere that do this.

But, the idea that the field of Climatology has to be seen as "falsified" on the grounds that it is ignoring solar variability is OBVIOUS CRAP. Solar energy is being studied in GREAT detail.

I'm surprised at you. This was EASY to find. You should vet your cites!

 

A graph that has intervals that small is useless. The slope of the instantaneous rates of change become apparent if you use graphs for much longer intervals. The foolish little graphs from 1980 to now is like the low information retort, “gee it was cold last night, must not be any climate change.”

 

I do prefer the terminology science uses.

BUT, "global warming" refers Earth's average temperature - the global average.

There is NO claim by ANYONE in science, including among the deniers you search for, that "global" means that all parts of the globe are increasing in lock step.

So, when someone chooses a false definition of that term in order to claim climatology is wrong, they are either LYING or they are GROSSLY UNINFORMED.

 

Dr. Nakamura seems credible enough.
"Dr. Nakamura received a Doctorate of Science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and for nearly 25 years specialized in abnormal weather and climate change at prestigious institutions that included MIT, Georgia Institute of Technology, NASA, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, JAMSTEC and Duke University."

 

Nope. Just pointing out where the paradigm fails.

 

And speaking of the solar contribution:
2001-2019 Warming Driven By Increases In Absorbed Solar Radiation, Not Human Emissions
By Kenneth Richard on 18. October 2021

Share this...
Three new studies affirm the increase in absorbed solar radiation associated with decreased reflection by clouds (albedo) has been the “root cause” of the positive Earth Energy Imbalance and global warming since the early 2000s.
Scientists (Loeb et al., 2021) have determined the rather uncertain positive trend in Earth’s Energy Imbalance (EEI) from 2005 to 2019, 0.5 W/m² ±0.47 W/m² per decade−1, is “primarily due to an increase in absorbed solar radiation associated with decreased reflection by clouds.”. . . .

 

The extreme high's and lows that you are taking.... are temperatures of 1 month.
You took ONLY 10 of the most extreme high's and low months out of 420, to draw them lines.
That's a joke to think that's an accurate way to average things out.

I took the other blue line... the annual high, made it red, and drew 1 line to show the average.
That's superior. And you have yet to argue against that.


Actually, you show to have absolutely no clue what you're doing.

 

If this guy was educated by MIT, worked at nasa and GIT, why not just ask those places about climate change. If you are using these places as “ credentials” you couldn’t be now saying they are lying. Or do they have selective truthfulness and all lack critical thinking skills.

 

That doesn't mean his comments have ANY validity on this topic.

It is also quite possible that his quotes are being taken entirely out of context.

I pointed out a crystal clear case where he is just plain wrong or his comments are being grossly misinterpreted.

For example, I'm sure there are tons of bad forecasting models for climate. But, that doesn't mean that climatology has to be discarded as false.

 

Ha ha
Kenneth Richard isn’t even a scientist. He’s a public policy wonk. good grief.

 

You created a false paradigm.

So, it's not surprising that your paradigm failed.

 

So what MIT says now is more important.

btw, he was talking bout data developed before 1980. Instead you’re quoting out of context.
P

 

You give no evidence to any complete quote by this person. Even your link isn’t to whatever you’re saying. As usual, more goboly goop

 

Of course.

But, calling scientific results "hype" is ridiculous.

And, finding extremists in the press and bashing SCIENCE for that is also ridiculous.

So, what are you left with on this accusation of yours?

 

The trend lines are the trend lines.

 

Dr. Nakamura was not quoted out of context and you'll need more than saying he's "just plain wrong."

 

The paradigm in which I have confidence is doing just fine.

 

Your problem is that "independent scientists in independent fields" are not finding evidence to support the AGW narrative.

 

I've already thought about it much more than you, and to far better effect.

Then why do AGW screamers ignore it, and pretend it's all a secular trend?

Which AGW screamers have never done, and try to stop anyone else from doing.

"Entire remainder"? You simply made that up.

Neither does increasing it to 30 or 300 or 3000 years. That's kinda the point.

Then NOAA is wrong.

 

No they aren't. They are merely finding it expedient to genuflect to the same nonscience. I see it all the time: a paper whose results clearly challenge the AGW narrative, and then the authors insert a little non sequitur genuflection to AGW. It's disgraceful that they do it, but it is even more disgraceful that they have been made to feel they have to.

Which will be fatal to anti-fossil-fuel hysteria mongering.