Oh no Henny Penny! Here is a REASONABLE report concerning climate change!

[AustinChief]

Article about the report...
http://www.natureworldnews.com/artic...al-warming.htm

they believe, "A potential global warming issue has been identified that should be treated as a potential problem for which root cause is not definitely known."
For this reason, they argue, the U.S. government is "over-reacting" to the concerns of the media, scientists and activists and that a more "rational process for allocation of research funds without the constant media hype of an AGW crisis is needed."

The actual report...
http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/...ss%20Rpt-1.pdf

And here is another article showing how little we know and how it's BAD SCIENCE to keep claiming with certainty that our models are correct when they continue to be proven wrong EVERY SINGLE TIME.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...93F0AJ20130416

"The climate system is not quite so simple as people thought," said Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish statistician and author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist" who estimates that moderate warming will be beneficial for crop growth and human health.

Some experts say their trust in climate science has declined because of the many uncertainties. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had to correct a 2007 report that exaggerated the pace of melt of the Himalayan glaciers and wrongly said they could all vanish by 2035.

"My own confidence in the data has gone down in the past five years," said Richard Tol, an expert in climate change and professor of economics at the University of Sussex in England.

Suck it you smug assholes who crow as if you know with certainty how the global climate functions. The models are horrendously flawed and always have been, a ton more research is needed before we even approach a clue.

[ClevelandBronco]

So I guess Al Gore can keep the house.

[AustinChief]

My favorites are the "sea rise" idiots. It would take massive temperature shifts to bring about any significant rise. In the same vein, I saw a recent report that claimed they could explain why ocean temperature rise isn't what they predicted. The temp is rising but it is rising way down below the surface. An area we conveniently don't have any way to accurately produce past values for. Keep moving those goalposts!!

[HonestChieffan]

An issue that will not die

[cdcox]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/NASA...s-letter2.html

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by cdcox

http://www.skepticalscience.com/NASA...s-letter2.html

You can't be ****ing serious. So we got it all ****ing down! We know more than enough to make predictive models.... we just don't do it cuz we don't wanna.

NOT ONE ACCURATE PREDICTIVE MODEL IN HUMAN HISTORY. Not one.

I have no problem with people who "believe" humans are causing global climate change. I certainly think it's possible. It's the ****ing ridiculously HORRENDOUS "scientists" who claim to KNOW that piss me off. In NO OTHER SERIOUS FIELD would their antics not be laughed off the pages of journals. You can't constantly pass of your hypotheses as facts ESPECIALLY after they keep coming up short.

Did you bother to read the report or just the canned critique by a known alarmist? I stopped reading the critique when they claimed this...

we at Skeptical Science have shown several times, the IPCC temperature projections have been exceptionally accurate (Figure 4).

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
You's have to be incredibly stupid or incredibly ignorant to believe this bullshit. You can't take bits and pieces of a predictive model with various possible results and Frankenstein together a conclusion after the fact and call it "accurate." It's a JOKE that anyone would be so stupid as to think this is decent science.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

You can't be ****ing serious. So we got it all ****ing down! We know more than enough to make predictive models.... we just don't do it cuz we don't wanna.

NOT ONE ACCURATE PREDICTIVE MODEL IN HUMAN HISTORY. Not one.

I have no problem with people who "believe" humans are causing global climate change. I certainly think it's possible. It's the ****ing ridiculously HORRENDOUS "scientists" who claim to KNOW that piss me off. In NO OTHER SERIOUS FIELD would their antics not be laughed off the pages of journals. You can't constantly pass of your hypotheses as facts ESPECIALLY after they keep coming up short.

Did you bother to read the report or just the canned critique by a known alarmist? I stopped reading the critique when they claimed this...



HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
You's have to be incredibly stupid or incredibly ignorant to believe this bullshit. You can't take bits and pieces of a predictive model with various possible results and Frankenstein together a conclusion after the fact and call it "accurate." It's a JOKE that anyone would be so stupid as to think this is decent science.

As an outsider to this, your position seems more based on emotion than science. I know it's a bit of a stylistical observation.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by La literatura

As an outsider to this, your position seems more based on emotion than science. I know it's a bit of a stylistical observation.

No my actual opinion of the REAL science is one of measured skepticism but I do believe that current research SUGGESTS that man's actions could certainly affect the global climate.

My emotion response is a reaction to the scare tactics and bad science used by the media and amateur scientists to distort reality to fit their agendas. The current environmental movement is more reflective of some twisted religious movement than of cold hard scientific inquiry.

To be clear, there are plenty of honest intelligent scientists searching for answers who BELIEVE that we need to take action now to avoid disaster. I have no problem with those BELIEFS. I take issue when they are presented as FACTS when there has been nothing to substantiate them as such.

[Pawnmower]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

My emotion response is a reaction

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

\

NOT ONE ACCURATE PREDICTIVE MODEL IN HUMAN HISTORY. Not one.

Last time we had this discussion I gave the example of Hansen's 1988 predictions (very unsophisticated compared to those made today) which I contend has turned out to be a very reasonable prediction.

You argued that CO2 was above scenario A, while I countered that by looking at all forms of forcing (NOx, CFCs, methane, volcanic activity, etc) that we were really between scenarios B and C. (see post 57 in the thread below)

In post 58, you said I was wrong but never demonstrated why...

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=268444

So no matter how many capital letters you use, you have not yet demonstrated that Hansen's predictions in 1988 were erroneous. If you can show that total forcing since 1985 is above scenario A, I'll grant that the Hansen 1988 prediction was wrong, but the ball is in your court.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by cdcox

Last time we had this discussion I gave the example of Hansen's 1988 predictions (very unsophisticated compared to those made today) which I contend has turned out to be a very reasonable prediction.

You argued that CO2 was above scenario A, while I countered that by looking at all forms of forcing (NOx, CFCs, methane, volcanic activity, etc) that we were really between scenarios B and C. (see post 57 in the thread below)

In post 58, you said I was wrong but never demonstrated why...

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=268444

So no matter how many capital letters you use, you have not yet demonstrated that Hansen's predictions in 1988 were erroneous. If you can show that total forcing since 1985 is above scenario A, I'll grant that the Hansen 1988 prediction was wrong, but the ball is in your court.

I can't see how you can lie with a straight face about Hansen's 1988 predictions somehow being accurate. They are only accurate if you go back and CHANGE the model. Period. As I stated then and I'll reiterate... your point about other forms of forcing can make his model invalid to the argument but it CERTAINLY doesn't make it ACCURATE. I'm happy to agree that his model wasn't "wrong" it was just incomplete therefore can not be used to predict current conditions based on measurable data.

So, my point still stands.

NOT ONE MODEL HAS BEEN ACCURATE AND PREDICTIVE without requiring significant "fudging" after the fact. btw.. even Hansen admits he was significantly off on the effects of CO2 which is why he has revised his model to reflect the new numbers.

And yes his 1988 predictions were very rudimentary compared to todays models. And there is a CHANCE (highly highly unlikely.. see computational power required and Hamiltonian mechanics for one of many reasons why) that we are sitting on a model today that is more than accurate enough. BUT you can't declare the your hypothesis correct until you DO THE ****ING EXPERIMENT. No matter how much you BELIEVE it's true doesn't make it so.

Talking to climate zealots is like talking to Creationists. No amount of scientific fact or logic is going to sway them.

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

I can't see how you can lie with a straight face about Hansen's 1988 predictions somehow being accurate. They are only accurate if you go back and CHANGE the model. Period. As I stated then and I'll reiterate... your point about other forms of forcing can make his model invalid to the argument but it CERTAINLY doesn't make it ACCURATE. I'm happy to agree that his model wasn't "wrong" it was just incomplete therefore can not be used to predict current conditions based on measurable data.

So, my point still stands.

NOT ONE MODEL HAS BEEN ACCURATE AND PREDICTIVE without requiring significant "fudging" after the fact. btw.. even Hansen admits he was significantly off on the effects of CO2 which is why he has revised his model to reflect the new numbers.

And yes his 1988 predictions were very rudimentary compared to todays models. And there is a CHANCE (highly highly unlikely) that we are sitting on a model today that is more than accurate enough. BUT you can't declare the your hypothesis correct until you DO THE ****ING EXPERIMENT. No matter how much you BELIEVE it's true doesn't make it so.

Talking to climate zealots is like talking to Creationists. No amount of scientific fact or logic is going to sway them.

Exactly how do you have to fudge the model?

The argument is very simple. Hansen made predictions for three scenarios, A, B, and C. If you plot the real temperature on those projections is looks most like the prediction from scenario B. If you look at total forcing since 1985, it looks most like scenario B. What part of this do you dispute and why?


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...8-projections/

[Garcia Bronco]

The fact that they use "models" tells you they we can't determine what the problem is.

Originally Posted by AustinChief

You can't be ****ing serious. So we got it all ****ing down! We know more than enough to make predictive models.... we just don't do it cuz we don't wanna.

NOT ONE ACCURATE PREDICTIVE MODEL IN HUMAN HISTORY. Not one.

I have no problem with people who "believe" humans are causing global climate change. I certainly think it's possible. It's the ****ing ridiculously HORRENDOUS "scientists" who claim to KNOW that piss me off. In NO OTHER SERIOUS FIELD would their antics not be laughed off the pages of journals. You can't constantly pass of your hypotheses as facts ESPECIALLY after they keep coming up short.

Did you bother to read the report or just the canned critique by a known alarmist? I stopped reading the critique when they claimed this...



HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
You's have to be incredibly stupid or incredibly ignorant to believe this bullshit. You can't take bits and pieces of a predictive model with various possible results and Frankenstein together a conclusion after the fact and call it "accurate." It's a JOKE that anyone would be so stupid as to think this is decent science.

[tiptap]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

The fact that they use "models" tells you they we can't determine what the problem is.

Let's start with this. Ever hear of the Kinetic Theory of the Ideal Gas Law.
It states the relationship between the movement of molecules or atoms and the associated temperature and pressure in a given volume.

The ideal law is predicated upon these two of several assumptions. !. the collisions are 100% elastic (no loss) 2. the particles are infinitely small and spherical.

Both of these assumptions are false for all real gases and yet this model is the starting point for the whole of thermodynamics. We get very good agreement with the ideal gas law when we are at low pressures. We actually get information about the real gases, such as shape and chemical interactions due to non elastic collisions noting the divergence of readings from ideal behavior. It is a statistical/mathematical model of newtonian collisions.

The hypothesis of little balls, atoms, was just that up until the 20th Century.
The reason why the theory has a statistical nature is because there are are such a ridiculously large number of atoms or molecules associated with even small quantities of a substance. Only a statistical representation of the zillion of collisions can be used. And yet because of the Conservation Law of Energy we are absolutely confidence of this model.

So of course the model of the temperature of Earth is equally involved with statistical necessities and yet we have confidences in the determination because of The Conservation Law. The simplest model uses the thermodynamic relationship that treats the whole of the earth as represented by one number, a single temperature, based upon solar flux, reflection and interaction of radiant energy. What this simple model does give us is the change in temperature one should expect from changes in solar flux holding everything else constant. Or the change in temperature from changes in Albedo (reflection) holding everything else constant. (At this point one would point out the we know with certainty the sensitivity of temperature change do to Solar Flux changes and Albedo changes. And since we have very accurate satellite measurements as well as ground measurements of solar flux hitting the earth, we know that the Sun is not the cause of the increase in temperatures. One could still point to Albedo by showing some physical reason for a change in the Albedo to reflects less solar flux.)

But all models that attempt to represent the actual temperatures at different points on earth have to model wind flow and rains and such so quite quickly become very large but no less thermodynamically correct. It is just that more of the statistical averaging (such as a single temperature or a single flux number for the whole of the earth's surface) is replaced by newtonian representations of mass movement across the surface of the earth and the radiative interaction of solar flux with local albedo and quantum absorption of radiative energy (read greenhouse interaction). Which by thermodynamics gives us a temperature over some finite curved area of the surface. That all these temperatures together from all the surfaces when averaged gives essentially the same earth average number that is given by the much simpler model above. The difference is that we get information about the movement and fluxes of material including water through the atmosphere.

And it is important to note here that as opposed to AustinChiefs complaint that Hansens' model was off 30 %, which is true if one is comparing the real temperatures to his model predictions, that being less than a few degrees here. That Hansens' model, as a physical representation of the atmosphere, DOES NOT give us 0 degrees KELVIN or even 0 degrees Fahrenheit or 0 degrees Celsius but delivers a number right at the measured temperatures in our atmosphere. He is not off the temperature by 81 degrees Celsius, which would then be a 30% miss.

[Shaid]

It's true we have a couple reports here and there that still say climate change isn't real or man made or whatever. There are way more that say it is real. I guess the question is that if you are wrong and it is man made and we keep making it worse, will we be able to reverse course? If so, great. If not, great world you left for the grandkids.