Oh here we go...

[OllieC]

[Jinx]

OllieC said:

Need to update post 2000 with the increase in Somalian pirates (and showing the pause in temperatures)

[OllieC]

Jinx said:

OllieC said:

Need to update post 2000 with the increase in Somalian pirates (and showing the pause in temperatures)

The evidence is there for all to see.

[technogogo]

Doesn't that graph just show that most of the models are incomplete? Because they are models! We cannot yet accurately model the earths climate? No surprises there.

[Grumfutock]

The only model we need. You can guess the punchline.

[Agrispeed]

FredClogs said:

Growing and eating meat is pretty harmful to the environment, that's just a fact, especially beef and lamb.

Interestingly, this is not true.

Growing animals on a grass fed diet actually locks up carbon, among other gasses into the grassland, which is then put into the soil via the roots. The key is to use different grass types, and plants such as chicory, for example as well as other grasses to increase the soil mass available to lock up carbon, although normal pasture is still effective.

It is actually difficult to make a farm bad for the environment, certainly many farms that produce environment audits show that no matter the diesel used and cow numbers, there is still negative carbon use; I.e; more is used than produced, the methane a cow produces does not actually damage the environment, and reducing grassland through livestock reduction would actually have a detrimental effect.

Furthermore, several studies show that was the world to become only vegetarian and organic, the additional acres of rainforest having to be removed would produce an additional 500 billion tonnes of co2, which is more than the accumulative co2 emissions so far and it would require an additional 5 billion cattle to fertilise, which to put it into perspective, there are only 1.3 billion currently.

Vegetarian diets often impact global emissions more due to the increased use of plants such as soya which are grown in south america, and on cleared land, and are then transported.

The problem with many of these studies that show the negatives of farming usually have an agenda, or are incomplete, through poor research or to follow the authors opinion, Farming is not a popular industry in the eyes of those who are particularly, ahem, militant about global warming, perhaps because it does not follow other views that the lobby seems to hold in regards to animal rights, or otherwise.

Save the world, eat a cow!

[jshell]

technogogo said:

Doesn't that graph just show that most of the models are incomplete? Because they are models! We cannot yet accurately model the earths climate? No surprises there.

No.

NASA clearly stated that a 15 year pause or hiatus in warming trend would demonstrate a clear failure of the models. We've hit well over 15 years and the bandwagon still rolls on, and on, and on...

That's what they said in black and white.

[technogogo]

jshell said:

technogogo said:

Doesn't that graph just show that most of the models are incomplete? Because they are models! We cannot yet accurately model the earths climate? No surprises there.

No.

NASA clearly stated that a 15 year pause or hiatus in warming trend would demonstrate a clear failure of the models. We've hit well over 15 years and the bandwagon still rolls on, and on, and on...

That's what they said in black and white.

Like I said, the graph could be equally interpreted as showing that most of the models are incomplete? Or 'wrong' if you like. Although the hundred or so model output lines have I helpfully been smeared into coloured zones which is a loss of fidelity.

But does proof that we cannot yet produce a perfect model mean that the pause in warming will continue?

(Note I continue to question rather than state. Because I'm not a climate scientist.)

[turbobloke]

technogogo said:

jshell said:

technogogo said:

Doesn't that graph just show that most of the models are incomplete? Because they are models! We cannot yet accurately model the earths climate? No surprises there.

No.

NASA clearly stated that a 15 year pause or hiatus in warming trend would demonstrate a clear failure of the models. We've hit well over 15 years and the bandwagon still rolls on, and on, and on...

That's what they said in black and white.

Like I said, the graph could be equally interpreted as showing that most of the models are incomplete? Or 'wrong' if you like. Although the hundred or so model output lines have I helpfully been smeared into coloured zones which is a loss of fidelity.

But does proof that we cannot yet produce a perfect model mean that the pause in warming will continue?

(Note I continue to question rather than state. Because I'm not a climate scientist.)

Models were wrong before the pause, now they are even more wrong.

Vertical heat distribution, first derivatives, ice mass change, surface solar radiation, precipitable water, convectively forced large-scale circulations, jet stream, magnitude of the overturning circulation and atmospheric energy transport generally - you name it. There's no need to be a climate scientist btw all you need to do is be able to make comparisons.

And lack 'true belief' of course.

[Lv2spd2]

Grumfutock said:

By my reckoning this means we can look forward to McPenguin burgers by Feb.

I would try a McPenguin burger.

[technogogo]

turbobloke said:

Models were wrong before the pause, now they are even more wrong.

Vertical heat distribution, first derivatives, ice mass change, surface solar radiation, precipitable water, convectively forced large-scale circulations, jet stream, magnitude of the overturning circulation and atmospheric energy transport generally - you name it. There's no need to be a climate scientist btw all you need to do is be able to make comparisons.

And lack 'true belief' of course.

To compare the graphs in the Mail with those in the Express? Sorry just teasing.

You seem to make a case for complexity with the list of things but then claim that you don't need to be a climate scientist. Care to clarify? Surely you need to know how those things relate. Or can we just pump the numbers into Watson and have it fall for the apparent causalities?

[WinstonWolf]

technogogo said:

turbobloke said:

Models were wrong before the pause, now they are even more wrong.

Vertical heat distribution, first derivatives, ice mass change, surface solar radiation, precipitable water, convectively forced large-scale circulations, jet stream, magnitude of the overturning circulation and atmospheric energy transport generally - you name it. There's no need to be a climate scientist btw all you need to do is be able to make comparisons.

And lack 'true belief' of course.

To compare the graphs in the Mail with those in the Express? Sorry just teasing.

You seem to make a case for complexity with the list of things but then claim that you don't need to be a climate scientist. Care to clarify? Surely you need to know how those things relate. Or can we just pump the numbers into Watson and have it fall for the apparent causalities?

You only need to scrape through secondary school to spot when a model is wrong. The outcome they predicted? Wildly inacurate.

[Grumfutock]

Lv2spd2 said:

Grumfutock said:

By my reckoning this means we can look forward to McPenguin burgers by Feb.

I would try a McPenguin burger.

TBH I think I would as well

[jshell]

technogogo said:

jshell said:

technogogo said:

Doesn't that graph just show that most of the models are incomplete? Because they are models! We cannot yet accurately model the earths climate? No surprises there.

No.

NASA clearly stated that a 15 year pause or hiatus in warming trend would demonstrate a clear failure of the models. We've hit well over 15 years and the bandwagon still rolls on, and on, and on...

That's what they said in black and white.

Like I said, the graph could be equally interpreted as showing that most of the models are incomplete? Or 'wrong' if you like. Although the hundred or so model output lines have I helpfully been smeared into coloured zones which is a loss of fidelity.

But does proof that we cannot yet produce a perfect model mean that the pause in warming will continue?

(Note I continue to question rather than state. Because I'm not a climate scientist.)

The models are what was used to create support the scare in the first place.
The guardians of the data and models said that a 15 year pause proved the models wrong.
We've had a near 18 year pause.
Why won't you listen to them when they say the models have been proven not to be working?
No models predicted a pause and they have been falling over themselves to find a reason for the 'pause'.
No reasonable excuse has been found for the 'pause', and since they pedicted ever increasing fiery-geddon which hasn't manifested itself, then why don't they fix the broken science before doing anything else?
If you still think we're facing CO2 induced meltdown, then you have a religious-style belief, not a scientific one.

The whole story is broken, it's very plain to see.

Ask yourself: "Why do I really believe in this?"

[turbobloke]

technogogo said:

turbobloke said:

Models were wrong before the pause, now they are even more wrong.

Vertical heat distribution, first derivatives, ice mass change, surface solar radiation, precipitable water, convectively forced large-scale circulations, jet stream, magnitude of the overturning circulation and atmospheric energy transport generally - you name it. There's no need to be a climate scientist btw all you need to do is be able to make comparisons.

And lack 'true belief' of course.

To compare the graphs in the Mail with those in the Express? Sorry just teasing.

You seem to make a case for complexity with the list of things but then claim that you don't need to be a climate scientist. Care to clarify?

Sure. Take a look at the following graphical representations, relating to climate feedback parameters. I'll say no more, since I've claimed that a deeper understanding, while helpful, isn't necessary. What I did say was essential was an ability to undertake comparisons.



Compare the representation of data in the chart at the top left (actual measurements in the real world) with any and all of the other charts (outputs, i.e. predictions, from climate models) and use your ability in making comparisons to consider whether the climate models are a) succeeding or b) failing. By way of assistance, the answer is b) failing, and badly, this can be discerned without detailed knowledge of climate science.

If you're struggling a bit at this point, look at the gradient i.e. direction of slope of the top left chart compared to the rest.

technogogo said:

Surely you need to know how those things relate. Or can we just pump the numbers into Watson and have it fall for the apparent causalities?

See above. There are similar examples for each of the quantities I listed, and others besides.

[powerstroke]

WinstonWolf said:

technogogo said:

Jinx said:

Wow what an appalling comparison - now if the 95 or so said their models predict the bridge has already collapsed and yet it is still standing what would you decided to do?

Oh yes that is a much better analogy. Let's pretend that.

It isn't about the bridge it is about the state of opinion.

I should have used the "bun past it's sell by date with mould in the middle that is yet to be uncovered by a bite" analogy :-)

Mould forms from the outside in. HTH.

My guess is with the right computer modeling
It could be proved to form from in to out ,haven't they said all
The missing heat is hiding on the seabed by using this brilliant technology?

[WinstonWolf]

powerstroke said:

WinstonWolf said:

technogogo said:

Jinx said:

Wow what an appalling comparison - now if the 95 or so said their models predict the bridge has already collapsed and yet it is still standing what would you decided to do?

Oh yes that is a much better analogy. Let's pretend that.

It isn't about the bridge it is about the state of opinion.

I should have used the "bun past it's sell by date with mould in the middle that is yet to be uncovered by a bite" analogy :-)

Mould forms from the outside in. HTH.

My guess is with the right computer modeling
It could be proved to form from in to out ,haven't they said all
The missing heat is hiding on the seabed by using this brilliant technology?

My god, I think you've cracked it.

[technogogo]

So, again, the models are not currently good enough to have accurately predict *recent* measurements/observations. I'm with that. Still. I think that is all you are saying?

But how do you then assume that there is no *long* term trend in global temperatures? To do so, don't you have to blindly assume that temperatures have peaked and will start to go down? Or at worse stay at their current levels. That seems to be a faith position.

[turbobloke]

technogogo said:

So, again, the models are not currently good enough to have accurately predict *recent* measurements/observations. I'm with that. Still. I think that is all you are saying?

But how do you then assume that there is no *long* term trend in global temperatures? To do so, don't you have to blindly assume that temperatures have peaked and will start to go down? Or at worse stay at their current levels. That seems to be a faith position.

One problem is that we don't know what the score is for recent decades let alone further back. The data has been tortured until it confessed to something, but that something isn't a visible causal human signal.

Why are you asking for anyone to assume anything about the future, we can look at satellite data for as good an idea as any, when it's in.

The issue of rising or falling temperatures isn't the key point. Climate has always changed, temperatures are rarely constant for long, the essential element is the establishment of causality to humans. No such causality exists.

If we are not responsible for turning the thermostat up or down, the idea that we can then regulate it down or up us curious in the extreme.

We are spectators at the global level and need to adapt to inevitable natural climate change as best we can.

[vournikas]

technogogo said:

So, again, the models are not currently good enough to have accurately predict *recent* measurements/observations. I'm with that. Still. I think that is all you are saying?

But how do you then assume that there is no *long* term trend in global temperatures? To do so, don't you have to blindly assume that temperatures have peaked and will start to go down? Or at worse stay at their current levels. That seems to be a faith position.

Good grief.



Here, have some proper, long term temperature records to digest and cogitate over http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/VOSTOK-DOMECIceCoreCompa...