The ethical question no climate denier will answer

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by Poor Debater, May 27, 2013.

  1. PeakProphet

    PeakProphet Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Thus...the "Hansen Effect". He claims doing nothing results in a low side projection....which can't even be reached by burning 20 years worth of fossil fuels. By this logic, the NEXT time he screws the pooch, we can burn fuels just as furiously, knowing that his low projections are higher than what actually will happen.
     
  2. MannieD

    MannieD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No. What his model is saying is the 4.2C was to high; but even if it's 3C, it's still a problem. And unlike the pseudo-scientists, scientists actually learn from their errors and make correction.
    I tell you what. You build a computer that can run at teraflops and donate it to the climatologists, and I'm sure they'd use all the data for the last 200,000 years.
     
  3. jackdog

    jackdog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    19,691
    Likes Received:
    384
    Trophy Points:
    83
    hope you are not quoting those numbers from one of the computer models, only a couple of low sides ones are anywhere near actual temps and mean discrepancy grows larger every year. Hiding the decline gets harder every year doesn't it?
    [​IMG]
     
  4. PeakProphet

    PeakProphet Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Boy if that isn't the best reference chart I've seen in awhile.
     
  5. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I think that is the very point.

    These are compilations of huge amounts of data, and as you can see they are all over the board. All of the lines are predictions and expectations and models that have been made, and they are all over the place.

    The circles and squares are real life data, and they barely fit to the models.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06...-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means/

    When the "models" are so far out of reality, why should we be taking them seriously? And as time goes on, the models have not been getting closer to reality, they have been doing the exact opposite, and getting farther away from reality with every year.

    So if you think the chart is bad, blame that on the climatologists that come out with those models, it is their data.
     
  6. jackdog

    jackdog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    19,691
    Likes Received:
    384
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I think it illustrates the old throw enough mud at the wall and something might stick theory. In the commercial world if you wrote a simulation model as inaccurate these are you would be out of a job

    also illustrates how little we do know about climate and weather patterns, 200 years from scientists will look at that chart the same way we look at doctors using bleeding cures in the 19th century. Yet a lot of fools want to destroy the GDP over these jokes
     
  7. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In the commercial world, if you tried to pass off a set of simulations that use ONLY THE HIGHEST EMISSIONS SCENARIO as something that is "average", you would also be out of a job.

    In the commercial world, if you tried to pass off a simulation that cherry picks a small latitude band and a small altitude window as "average", you would also be out of a job.

    Yet on WUWT, such deceptions are an everyday occurrence. And the unquestioning acceptance of such deceptions by climate dupes is utterly predictable.
     
  8. jackdog

    jackdog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    19,691
    Likes Received:
    384
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I see you completely miss he point that the mean of all those models is still ridiculously inaccurate

    and of course in your last line you resort the AGW cultists fail safe retort when faced by facts, the ad hom and the diversion .

    sorry but attacking a blog does not negate the fact that the entire AGW CO2 theory is based on modeling and it is fast becoming obvious it is a completely inaccurate representation of actual temperature trends. If the current cooling trend continues the models current diversion from observed temperatures will only continue to increase
     
  9. MannieD

    MannieD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And ignoring the cool bias of UAH is just "lying by omission"
    A Bias in the Midtropospheric Channel Warm Target Factor on the NOAA-9 Microwave Sounding Unit
    Gee, I wonder why they used the Mid-troposphere to compare to the models. Because :



    Ridicule, conspiracy theories, strawman arguments and Lies is all the pseudo-scientists have left because reality is getting harder and harder to deny.
     
  10. PeakProphet

    PeakProphet Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I was speaking with Lee Gerhard

    http://dpa.aapg.org/gcc/

    two or three years back at some national conference or another, and he was quite explicit about understanding the natural variability inside a given system before going off half cocked and pretending that fitting anything to what could be the noise had much in the way of value.

    He was a smart cookie and understood what happens when someone models noise in a system.
     
  11. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Look, I fully understand "natural variability". In fact, if everything worked perfectly flat and according to predictions, I would actually be wondering where the variability was.

    But this is not "Natural Variability", it is in complete contradiction with the claimed results, and has done so for 25 years (and is getting worse every year). When the real temperature measurements show a flat line and the models show a rapid increase, one of them has to be wrong. And my money is on the models being wrong, not the actual measurements taken from multiple sources.
     
  12. jackdog

    jackdog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    19,691
    Likes Received:
    384
    Trophy Points:
    83
    at what point did it become acceptable to use the earths natural cycles to fleece the taxpayers

    answer - when politicians discovered it was possible
     
  13. jackdog

    jackdog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    19,691
    Likes Received:
    384
    Trophy Points:
    83
    oh my a sinfle cherry picked study with some copy and paste from skeptical non science, I wonder who funded that study ? NOAA perhaps.

    got any studies to prove that that one is more correct than the ones it supposedly debunks ?
     
  14. PeakProphet

    PeakProphet Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I agree with you. But there is certainly natural variability in the climate system, otherwise we wouldn't have little Ice Ages, or Roman warming periods, or Big Ice Ages, or any of it. If the models claim to predict long term trends, and are doing it based on the noise inside the system, of course they are wrong. It is like trying to predict the high and low temperatures of the day off of 23 seconds of time sequence temperature data...and I don't tell you when during the day the data came from. Model your heart out, without the larger context good luck developing a mode which can do the job.
     
  15. MannieD

    MannieD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ridicule, conspiracy theories, strawman arguments and Lies is all the pseudo-scientists have left because reality is getting harder and harder to deny.
    Oh the irony. C&P was from the abstract.

    Got a study which disproves Po-Chedley? Nah, I didn't think so.

    I see you hit the quadfecta! (again)
     
  16. jackdog

    jackdog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    19,691
    Likes Received:
    384
    Trophy Points:
    83




    You claim that one paper is false because it goes against your beliefs then quote a paper from 2 unknowns and it is gospel because it adheres to the party line.... funny stuff there
     
  17. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Really? Then how do explain the fact that, at these latitudes and altitudes, the satellite-based RSS trend is three times higher than the satellite-based UAH trend? Especially considering that these two groups use exactly the same satellites and raw data?

    We will now wait while the Jeopardy theme plays and Mushroom realizes how much in the dark he has been kept ... and while he ponders the question of what an "actual measurement" actually is ...
     
  18. jackdog

    jackdog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    19,691
    Likes Received:
    384
    Trophy Points:
    83

    easy, Spencer addressed this a while back on his blog

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/07...n-the-uah-and-rss-global-temperature-records/

    more detail and papers can be found here

    http://www.churchmilitant.tv/cia/04GlobalWarming/178.pdf

    and a everything you want to know about RSS and can't find on skeptical cereal box science http://www.ssmi.com/

    for those who can work a spreadsheet and don't want the convenience of wood for trees the data can be found here

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/msu/


    .
     
  19. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So these are all natural cycles?

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    It leaves me wondering if deniers are capable of identifying anything that is caused by industry.
     
  20. jackdog

    jackdog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    19,691
    Likes Received:
    384
    Trophy Points:
    83
    post something that is not on a image hosting site with data references and I might be inclined to comment

    it would take me about 5 minutes to make one of those in excel or openoffice, your credibility seems to shrink with every post you make

    go post that stuff on cereal box science, the low info sheep that read that site believe anything they are told by the political elites sheering them say
     
  21. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Full peer-reviewed data from which graphs above were drawn:

    CO2 data, Law Dome: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/law/law_co2.txt
    CO2 data, Dome C: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/epica_domec/edc-co2-2008.txt
    CO2 data, Mauna Loa: ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt
    Sea Ice, Kinnard et, al: http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/seminars/pdfs/Kinnardetal2011.pdf
    Global temperature anomaly, Marcott et. al: http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~mli/Economics 7004/Marcott_Global Temperature Reconstructed.pdf
    Global temperature anomaly, NASA GISS: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

    Here's betting that you still won't defend your ridiculous "natural cycle" idiocy, even with peer reviewed references.
    Here's betting that you still are unable to tell the difference between a natural cycle and an industrial process even when it's staring you in the face.
     
  22. PeakProphet

    PeakProphet Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    You really don't understand what anyone is saying when they talk about forecasting the noise within a system, do you?
     
  23. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So you're saying that this is just "noise within a system"?

    [​IMG]

    Do you realize how ridiculous you look when you make ridiculous claims like that?
     
  24. jackdog

    jackdog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    19,691
    Likes Received:
    384
    Trophy Points:
    83
    My area of interest is history and anthropology in regard to climate change. Funny that you should pick the Kinard paper because that one stood out as being a bit odd. I have done a lot of reading on the N. W. passage in the last couple of years and quite frankly I have to wonder about the proxy reconstructions in that paper. Most of the NW passage was navigated during the 19th century, this can be verified by ships logs and naval exploration records. Roald Amundson was given credit as the first one to successfully navigate it in 1905. Even with the current sea ice extent navigating the NW passage is just now becoming a possibility once again. During the greater part 20th century it was impossible

    If the sea ice during those periods had been to the extent in Kinard's graphs the passage would have been impossible. I will take historical records over reconstructions every time and if Kinard was off so badly for the 19th and early 20th century that casts doubts on his accuracy for the rest of the paper.

    I have to raise the BS flag on this one, claiming that sea ice is now lower than it was when Amundson navigated the NW passage is ridiculous

    references

    http://seagrant.uaf.edu/nosb/2005/resources/arctic-explorers.pdf
    http://www.athropolis.com/arctic-facts/fact-amundsen.htm
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2012/09/11/f-franklin-northwest-passage-arctic.html
    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/arctic-ice-conditions-the-same-as-200-years-ago/

    I will look at the other papers when I get time during the next couple of days
     
  25. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Only in tiny parts, never as a whole, and never in a single year.

    Yes, and it took him three years to do it, overwintering twice.

    And all of the 19th century. And all of the 18th century. And all of the 17th century. And all of the 16th century. You have a very selective view of history.

    And in fact, it was impossible. So Kinnard is right.

    Since Kinnard is in fact supported by historical data, you're just plain wrong.

    Since small craft are now getting through the entire NW passage in a single season, whereas it took Amundsen three years, I have to raise the BS flag on you, jackdog.

    Here's another question no denier will answer, including you: name one vessel that navigated the NW passage during the 19th century. Name of vessel, captain, year (or years), and peer-reviewed citation please. Not even your own references support you on this, so I would expect an honorable person to retract this completely false posting.
     

Share This Page