Register to Comment
Page 3360 of 6576 FirstFirst ... 236028603260331033503358335933603361336233703410346038604360 ... LastLast
Results 33,591 to 33,600 of 65759
Like Tree13926Likes
  1. #33591
    Agnotologist Agnotologist is offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    4,925

    Quote Originally Posted by Iarmuid View Post
    You have shown over and over again you are impenetrable to facts, evidence and logic and incapable of reasoned and polite discussion; this will be the last time I respond to you.







    Die Klimazwiebel: Lennart Bengtsson: Global climate change and its relevance for a global energy policy.



    Interview: Hans von Storch on Problems with Climate Change Models - SPIEGEL ONLINE
    Embarrassed by not being able to answer?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #33592
    Iarmuid Iarmuid is offline
    Iarmuid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    1,319

    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post
    Of how much relevance is the tropical troposphere? Not a lot.

    Is there agreement about the observations? No, there is not. Dr Spencer's UAH measurements differ significantly from those of RSS.

    Is this a problem? Of course, but one that scientists will solve. If Roy Spencer was a real scientist, not a propagandist, he would be working with other scientists to find out why models differ from observations, and observations differ from satellite to satellite.

    Discrepancies in tropical upper tropospheric warming between atmospheric circulation models and satellites - IOPscience

    The apparent model-observational difference for tropical upper tropospheric warming represents an important problem, but it is not clear whether the difference is a result of common biases in GCMs, biases in observational datasets, or both.

    15 years is close to the lower end for relevance of trends. People who focus on short periods to the exclusion of longer ones are clearly indulging in confirmation bias.
    You have been given sources for two highly credentialed and respected Climate scientists stating that GCMs are currently on the outer bounds of predictions. You have been given a release from NOAA as a further confirmation, additionally stating why 15 years is significant wrt to GCM predictions. You are no doubt aware of recent papers released with attempts to provide rationale addressing such discrepancies; as we have discussed them in the past. On each occasion you have consistently downplayed or outright refused to acknowledge any problems, the discrepancy between data and model predictions poses to current understanding. For you, the radiative effect of CO2 along with its accompanying hypothesized water vapour feed backs are primary and all subsuming, used as a crude bludgeon to justify and argue for policy preferences, no dissent or opposing opinion is brokered which threatens that position. For an exposition in confirmation bias, look in the mirror. You are right on one account however, none of this presents a problem to climate science, which under scientific norms, should rectify and improve itself.

    It only poses a problem to the politics of AGW sold to the public on false certainty, false consensus, emotive pleas to ignorance,( e.g. attempts to link weather or natural disasters to AGW, where little or no evidence to do so exists), demonisation of dissenting views [denier], etc. If the climate concerned need someone to blame for the ongoing implementation failure of CO2 mitigation policies look to those who have campaigned for them based on all of the above.
    Last edited by Iarmuid; 19th November 2013 at 04:22 PM.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #33593
    Agnotologist Agnotologist is offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    4,925

    Quote Originally Posted by Iarmuid View Post
    You have been given sources for two highly credentialed and respected Climate scientists stating that GCMs are currently on the outer bounds of predictions. You have been given a release from NOAA as a further confirmation, additionally stating why 15 years is significant wrt to GCM predictions. You are no doubt aware of recent papers released with attempts to provide rationale addressing such discrepancies; as we have discussed them in the past. On each occasion you have consistently downplayed or outright refused to acknowledge any problems, the discrepancy between data and model predictions poses to current understanding. For you, the radiative effect of CO2 along with its accompanying hypothesized water vapour feed backs are primary and all subsuming, used as a crude bludgeon to justify and argue for policy preferences, no dissent or opposing opinion is brokered which threatens that position. For an exposition in confirmation bias, look in the mirror. You are right on one account however, none of this presents a problem to climate science, which under scientific norms, should rectify and improve itself.

    It only poses a problem to the politics of AGW sold to the public on false certainty, false consensus, emotive pleas to ignorance,( e.g. attempts to link weather or natural disasters to AGW, where little or no evidence to do so exists), demonisation of dissenting views [denier], etc. If the climate concerned need someone to blame for the ongoing implementation failure of CO2 mitigation policies look to those who have campaigned for them based on all of the above.
    Your post is a deck of cards. It tumbles with every misstatement.Among other proved false claims in that, the first major one is that the water feedback is "hypothesized." Your two "highly credentialed and respected" scientists are now so respected that they have difficulty getting published. Their papers, such as they are, appear in fringe journals and most of the ir work is now in newspaper articles.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #33594
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    38,744

    Quote Originally Posted by Iarmuid View Post
    You have been given sources for two highly credentialed and respected Climate scientists stating that GCMs are currently on the outer bounds of predictions.
    Yes, in the short term, but within 95% confidence bounds. Not particularly worried.

    You have been given a release from NOAA as a further confirmation, additionally stating why 15 years is significant wrt to GCM predictions.
    You mean AT LEAST 15 years. Different matter altogether. 15 years is at the lower bound of significance. So, preferably, we should use higher-duration periods to estimate trends.

    I hope you are not suggesting that a 15-year trend has less error than a 20-year or 30-year trend.

    All my scientific statements can be justified with reference to peer reviewed literature, and as summarised in the IPCC reports.

    You cannot say the same.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #33595
    Agnotologist Agnotologist is offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    4,925

    Quote Originally Posted by Trainwreck View Post
    Alarmist nonsense in retreat. Responsible and rational adults seem to be gaining an upper hand in important quarters:

    Australia, Canada Oppose Multi-Nation Climate-Change Fund | CNS News
    When you call the Prime Minister of Canada a "responsible and rational" adult, look up tje Alliance Church. Then the Cornwall Alloance that is the guiding spirit of that Church.

    Harper is a firm member and adherent to the belief system you will discover there.

    That is where his opposition to action on climate change comes from as well as all his other destructive policies.

    He is the paramount example of why democracy does not work in a time frame that would prevent political catastrophe.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #33596
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    38,744

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnotologist View Post
    When you call the Prime Minister of Canada a "responsible and rational" adult, look up tje Alliance Church. Then the Cornwall Alloance that is the guiding spirit of that Church.

    Harper is a firm member and adherent to the belief system you will discover there.

    That is where his opposition to action on climate change comes from as well as all his other destructive policies.

    He is the paramount example of why democracy does not work in a time frame that would prevent political catastrophe.
    It has come to a fine pass when a creationist politician (Harper) and his antipodean counterpart Abbott (a former candidate for the priesthood, and an old fashioned Catholic authoritarian) are held up as models of "rational adulthood".
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #33597
    Earthling Earthling is offline
    Earthling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    7,840

    Quote Originally Posted by zakalwe1 View Post
    agreed[sic].
    i may not be a supporter of AGW, but the use of the maldives[sic] (there is nothing wrong with the spelling earthling[sic]) example is not quite appropriate as, due to the coral nature of the atolls, they are suseptible[sic] to many influences such as pollution, acidification, temperature changes, human activity (fishing with grenades, building, etc).

    there[sic] might be no GW, but the maldives[sic] would still be under threat.
    Proper noun

    Definition:
    A noun belonging to the class of words used as names for unique individuals, events, or places. Contrast with common noun.
    Most proper nouns (for example, Fred, New York, Mars, Coca Cola, Maldives) begin with a capital letter. Proper nouns are not usually preceded by articles or other determiners. Most proper nouns are singular.

    Hope that helps.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #33598
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    38,744

    Josh Willis from NASA, climate scientist .... talks no bullshyt about 15 year trends.

    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #33599
    Earthling Earthling is offline
    Earthling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    7,840

    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post
    It has come to a fine pass when a creationist politician (Harper) and his antipodean counterpart Abbott (a former candidate for the priesthood, and an old fashioned Catholic authoritarian) are held up as models of "rational adulthood".
    Yes, it must be awful for you guys to see people like Harper and Abbot as Prime Ministers.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #33600
    myksav myksav is offline

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    34,620

    Quote Originally Posted by Earthling View Post
    Yes, it must be awful for you guys to see people like Harper and Abbot as Prime Ministers.
    Not particularly, we've got Enda.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment