Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Ivy Echo Chamber
- Climate Homicide
- Much Ado About Nothing
- Homophobic Gas
- World Bank Expectations
- Trained Not To Learn
- Protecting Endangered Species
- Record Climate Cynicism
- Record Cynicism
- The Latest In Climate Science Rhetoric
- Climate Desperation
- Artificial Stupidity
- Climate Obsession
- The Climate Empire Strikes Back
- Climate Scam Parrots
- “I’ve dealt with him before ”
- “I’ve dealt with him before.”
- “BE HONEST”
- Turn Out The Lights – The Party’s Over
- Net Zero In The UK
- Turn Out The Lights, The Party Is Over
- Michael Mann Again
- Over The Target
- Michael Mann’s Latest Research
- “an amazing documentary dismantling the climate change theory”
Recent Comments
- Bert on Ivy Echo Chamber
- Conrad Ziefle on Climate Homicide
- Conrad Ziefle on Climate Homicide
- Russell Cook on Climate Homicide
- czechlist on Ivy Echo Chamber
- Russell Cook on Climate Homicide
- Dan A Sinema on Climate Homicide
- MLH on Homophobic Gas
- Billyjack on Climate Homicide
- Laurie on Ivy Echo Chamber
if this was a conspiracy they would never acknowledge uncertainty.
Certainly cloud cover is one of a number of areas regarding climate change that are very difficult to quantify. Deep sea temp sink, and biological factors like bacteria are also hard to factor into climate.
Pointing these type of issues out is perfectly reasonable. Of course your headline remains unreasonable, but one can’t have everything.
Of course your headline remains unreasonable
That was the punchline, right? You forgot the wink face.
TonyD:
Did you forget to read all the papers that promote ACC, AGW, ACD, CACC, CAGW, CACD, and all of Hansen’s work claiming they can determine within a narrow range what we can expect in 2100.
It would only be a conspiracy if the desired outcome is hidden. These people end all their papers with openness by telling additional research is needed to better understand what we claim to understand. The science is settled but we need more money because the science is not settled. We know the exact sensitivity of the climate to CO2 but we do not know what the effect of clouds are that effect that level of sensitivity.
Do those claims sound contradictory? They are and they are made every day since the end of the second world war as scientists started looking for research funding.
Al Gore is open and honest about his Ponzi Scheme. We all know companies stand to make lots of money if regulations are placed on fossil fuels and the same companies stand to make a fortune from government grants and Guaranteed loans that can be defaulted on so taxpayers pick up 100% of the share holder profits.
Of course the headline is unreasonable. It is the truth and the truth hurts, which is not Politically Correct! We would not want any meanie to hurt lill um’s tender feelings.
The accuracy of the average of an ensemble of 22 model runs with a ten degree centigrade range of outputs, all based on our current state of knowledge, should provide an idea of what will happen over time, within .5C, when an error factor of twice the range is allowed.
I would venture a guess that over 50% of the started model runs are discarded as outliers because they do provide the desired results.
They could have done better using Armstrong’s forecast principles or consulting Madame Sophie on the corner.
The people giving grant money must not know too much about who really deserves money for useful things.
The point being they can’t. Mainly because it is impossible. The GCMs take a forcing due to CO2 of 3w/sqm and end up somewhere between 1 and 6 C of warming.
This is of course totally unproven.
The main problem with the GCMs being:-
1.The feedback of water vapour, which is acting the in the opposite direction in the real world.
2.PDO/AMO no attempt to model this.
3.Henrik Svensmark GCR modulation of clouds, not present.
4.Clouds , probably an order of magnitude bigger than the CO2 forcing. This being the main problem with the GCMs. They don’t seem to understand clouds are the reason the Earth’s climate has been stable for 4,000,000,000 years. Basically if its hot there are more clouds, this reflects away more of sun’s energy cooling the earth. And vice versa. It is obvious that 3w/sqm can’t heat the earth in the fashion described in the GCMs, if the Earth’s climate were this unstable, then there would be no chance of complex lifeforms evolving. Simple enough to understand really.
John Edmondson says:
” The GCMs take a forcing due to CO2 of 3w/sqm and end up somewhere between 1 and 6 C of warming.
This is of course totally unproven.”
No it isn’t ‘totally unproven’. Even school boy science can show that a doubling of Co2 without feed back gives over 1C warming.
“1.The feedback of water vapour, which is acting the in the opposite direction in the real world.”
Real world? Not this one, how clouds affect the climate is one of the areas of greatest uncertainty but even if the overall feedback was negative it is unlikely to be enough to balance out warming before significant climate change is expected to occur. In fact increased clouds will lead to significant climate change.
“2.PDO/AMO no attempt to model this.”
Wrong. Models display PDO/AMO characteristics, but more importantly, these cycles just move heat around, they do not create it.
http://www.pnas.org/content/101/12/4136.full
“3.Henrik Svensmark GCR modulation of clouds, not present.”
Why would they be? The link between cosmic rays and cloud cover is yet to be confirmed, more importantly, there has been no correlation between cosmic rays and global temperatures over the last 30 years of global warming.
“4.Clouds , probably an order of magnitude bigger than the CO2 forcing. This being the main problem with the GCMs. They don’t seem to understand clouds are the reason the Earth’s climate has been stable for 4,000,000,000 years. Basically if its hot there are more clouds, this reflects away more of sun’s energy cooling the earth. And vice versa. It is obvious that 3w/sqm can’t heat the earth in the fashion described in the GCMs, if the Earth’s climate were this unstable, then there would be no chance of complex lifeforms evolving. Simple enough to understand really.”
Unsupported assertions. Hot does not necessarily mean more clouds as it also takes water vapour and conditions to make it condense into clouds – otherwise hot deserts would be the cloudiest places on Earth. As for evolution, climate change has been one of it main drivers, as well as contributing to mass extinctions when occurring on rapid time scales.
Comedy hour or minute!
ROFLAMO!
You appear to actually believe the S you are trying to spread.
Mike, I’m not spreading anything. It is all based on accepted research if you care to look. Pick any of my points and try to show otherwise if you like.
HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!
Way to funny!
I am going to town now! With a smile on my face!
Lazarus says:
November 8, 2010 at 4:53 pm
“No it isn’t ‘totally unproven’. Even school boy science can show that a doubling of Co2 without feed back gives over 1C warming.”
It’s a pity you didn’t demonstrate it.
I’m foiled again! How can someone like me who only relies on the science ever outwit a legend in his own mind?
What you see as science is what is referred to as Pathological Science as the actions taken by the practitioners fit the pattern of that cultist behavior.
When you find real science you may have something to discuss.
What I see as science is referred to as Peer Reviewed Science.
But you tactics to avoid discussing it, if you really think you know better, has been noted.
Peer Reviewed papers that are not examined for possible errors and when errors are found excuses come out and claims the errors do not affect the out come because others using faulty methods relying on faulty data also came to faulty conclusions which fit within the error bars of the origional paper.
Real science is open and transparent with real scientists wanting their work to be criticized. Real scientists do not form a tribe to defend garbage by claiming others are just trying to find fault.
What am I attempting to avoid discussing? The only thing you have brought up is “Garbage: not science!
Mike Davis,
Thanks for making it crystal that you have no idea what peer reviewed science is and how it underpins all scientific research and investigation.
I can now see how trying to engage you in rational debate was flawed form the outset.
Peer review is a modern convention; neither Newton nor Einstein were peer reviewed. The scientific method has nothing to do with peer review. Peer review thus does not underpin all scientific research and investigation.
I’m just adding this here so that passers by can see you for the liar that you are.
In theory, a liar could pass review done by his peers, fellow liars that is, and claim to have been peer-reviewed despite having lied through and through…