Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

[Toltec]

Globs said:

The reason your climate models don't work is that they fail to take account of the primary driver of climate: the amount of energy reaching the ground from the sun. Read IPCC AR4 and AR5 - they are full of the re-radiation side of the equation, but fail to get within even 10% of the current earth albedo, let alone tiny albedo changes of 1-2% that wipe out all of their emissive crap.

Because no model predicts the clouds positions and densities to anywhere like the accuracy required your models diverge hopelessly and end up like any other broken simulation: without a clue.
The failure to predict the track of a simple hurricane storm system over 24 hours highlights the gross deficiencies in the models that causes the epic failures that we have seen. Climate models are not just like throwing darts at the board: they are worse than chance, it's as if the dartboard is locked in a draw because they have failed to realise they needed one.

Have you got it yet?

No cloud modelling = no albedo modelling = one side of the equilibrium ignored = no working climate model

While, as a populist CC skeptic, I appreciate what you are saying about albedo I don't see why you are linking long-term climate modelling with short term weather modelling. It is like blaming population growth projections for not predicting the birth dates for children in one town.

[Globs]

durbster said:

Globs said:

Have you got it yet?

No cloud modelling = no albedo modelling = one side of the equilibrium ignored = no working climate model

No idea why you are referring to them as my climate models, or why you keep labouring the same point.

They are 'your' climate models because they are the sole reason you believe in Global Warming. If the IPCC didn't exist and no one had mentioned it, you'd not be claiming the planet is warming and we're all doomed.

durbster said:

What I'm disputing is your fundamental assertion that observations have not come anywhere near close to matching projections. What projections and observed data are you referring to that you are labelling an "epic fail"?

No you are not disputing that, you have simply re-framed the argument and trying to win the one you chose because you think that will be easier. What you are objecting to, but are TOTALLY failing to even address, let alone debunk is the simple logic:

No cloud modelling = no albedo modelling = one side of the equilibrium ignored = no working climate model

durbster said:

Nobody's going to be able to write software that can model cloud formations across the world over decades.

You have just confirmed the first step.
That proves there is no albedo modelling.
So one side of the equilibrium equation is unknown.

Congratulations, you have just demonstrated that climate 'science' is a bust.

QED.

[wc98]

durbster said:

With what confidence level was that prediction made?

Better still, can you point to the paper you're referring to please?

Edited by durbster on Monday 25th September 07:47

do you mean confidence interval or level ? have a read of ipcc ar5 https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/... then ask yourself how the information in the section relating to sea level squares with this statement from noaa "With continued ocean and atmospheric warming, sea levels will likely rise for many centuries at rates higher than that of the current century." https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

[Kawasicki]

Don't climate scientists already "know" that most of the warming due to increasing CO2 is due to positive feedback due to water vapour. I would imagine a climate scientist could at least have a go at modeling whether this increased humidity increases cloud cover.

[Toltec]

Kawasicki said:

Don't climate scientists already "know" that most of the warming due to increasing CO2 is due to positive feedback due to water vapour. I would imagine a climate scientist could at least have a go at modeling whether this increased humidity increases cloud cover.

It isn't just the cloud cover, rising, warm moist air cools by releasing energy as IR radiation in the upper atmosphere, which then radiates into space.

The climate models all seem to show runaway warming, is it not more likely that a new equilibrium will be reached? That may be inconvenient for humans, however it won't wipe out all life on the planet.

[durbster]

Globs said:

They are 'your' climate models because they are the sole reason you believe in Global Warming.

Are they? Blimey. That's news to me but I appreciate you letting me know.

Globs said:

If the IPCC didn't exist and no one had mentioned it, you'd not be claiming the planet is warming and we're all doomed.

You've got me there. If no scientists had ever worked out the theory, done the research and published it, I doubt I'd know much about it.

Globs said:

durbster said:

What I'm disputing is your fundamental assertion that observations have not come anywhere near close to matching projections. What projections and observed data are you referring to that you are labelling an "epic fail"?

No you are not disputing that, you have simply re-framed the argument and trying to win the one you chose because you think that will be easier.

Your point isn't worth considering unless you can provide evidence of your assertion that the models have been an "epic fail" and "grossly deficient".

Without that, you might as well be presenting an equation that "proves" birds can't fly.

In the meantime, let's repeat it again. Maybe it'll become a catchphrase.

No cloud modelling = no albedo modelling = one side of the equilibrium ignored = no working climate model

[robinessex]

durbster said:

Globs said:

They are 'your' climate models because they are the sole reason you believe in Global Warming.

Are they? Blimey. That's news to me but I appreciate you letting me know.

Globs said:

If the IPCC didn't exist and no one had mentioned it, you'd not be claiming the planet is warming and we're all doomed.

You've got me there. If no scientists had ever worked out the theory, done the research and published it, I doubt I'd know much about it.

Globs said:

durbster said:

What I'm disputing is your fundamental assertion that observations have not come anywhere near close to matching projections. What projections and observed data are you referring to that you are labelling an "epic fail"?

No you are not disputing that, you have simply re-framed the argument and trying to win the one you chose because you think that will be easier.

Your point isn't worth considering unless you can provide evidence of your assertion that the models have been an "epic fail" and "grossly deficient".

Without that, you might as well be presenting an equation that "proves" birds can't fly.

In the meantime, let's repeat it again. Maybe it'll become a catchphrase.

No cloud modelling = no albedo modelling = one side of the equilibrium ignored = no working climate model

In a new paper in the prestigious journal Nature Geoscience, the scientists who produce those doomsday reports for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have finally come clean — the computer models they’ve been using to predict runaway global warming are wrong, the planet has stubbornly refused to heat up anywhere near as much as they’d warned.

There you go Durbs

[mondeoman]

http://notrickszone.com/2017/09/25/another-new-pap...

[durbster]

No Tricks Zone is a fully discredited source. They consistently list papers without the authors consent, and wilfully misrepresent their contents.

Edited by durbster on Tuesday 26th September 07:53

[XM5ER]

durbster said:

No Tricks Zone is a fully discredited source. They consistently list papers without the authors consent, and wilfully misrepresent their contents.

Edited by durbster on Tuesday 26th September 07:53

What are you talking about? Anyone can list a paper and criticize it, it is not against the law and it isn't willful misrepresentation.

[kerplunk]

robinessex said:

James Delingpole said:

In a new paper in the prestigious journal Nature Geoscience, the scientists who produce those doomsday reports for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have finally come clean — the computer models they’ve been using to predict runaway global warming are wrong, the planet has stubbornly refused to heat up anywhere near as much as they’d warned.

There you go Durbs

Unsurprisingly Delingpole has misrepresented what the paper says:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/2...

[Jinx]

kerplunk said:

Unsurprisingly Delingpole has misrepresented what the paper says:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/2...

Both interpretations are valid KP - that's the point of research, that others can take your findings and interpret them in new ways to advance understanding.

[robinessex]

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

James Delingpole said:

In a new paper in the prestigious journal Nature Geoscience, the scientists who produce those doomsday reports for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have finally come clean — the computer models they’ve been using to predict runaway global warming are wrong, the planet has stubbornly refused to heat up anywhere near as much as they’d warned.

There you go Durbs

Unsurprisingly Delingpole has misrepresented what the paper says:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/2...

What would you expect from the Guardian, and crazy George Moonbat!!!!

[Globs]

Durbster, the IPCC and AGW rest on that equilibrium equation: This is their foundation.
Your belief in global warming rests upon the IPCC and those AGW theories.
These are facts regardless of your recognition of them. If you deny this - why are you posting in the Science section?

durbster said:

Your point isn't worth considering unless you can provide evidence of your assertion that the models have been an "epic fail" and "grossly deficient".

Without that, you might as well be presenting an equation that "proves" birds can't fly.

Wrong, the failure of climate models is an output of the facts and logic, not an input.
The point of failing to consider the unknown side of the equilibrium is a causal failure of AGW.

AGW is built on the side of the outgoing radiation, it claims that our industrial gases are lowering the emission of heat radiation into space. But AGW assumes the incoming radiation is largely constant and completely ignores the factors that rule the incoming radiation side (the clouds) which must balance to achieve equilibrium, despite the clouds acting as a huge reflector to bounce incoming solar radiation back into space. This is the problem you are trying to avoid discussing.

To calculate the amount of solar radiation that does not get reflected and makes it to the ground or sea (which reflects some itself) you need to know the position, incident angles etc. None of this is covered by your models, even the basic albedo figure estimates are +/- 10% accuracy - 10 x the whole AGW effect as per IPCC's AR4 paper.

durbster said:

In the meantime, let's repeat it again. Maybe it'll become a catchphrase.

No cloud modelling = no albedo modelling = one side of the equilibrium ignored = no working climate model

Yes, you're starting to get it now.
Note again that 'no working climate model' is the OUTPUT of the facts and logic, not an input.

[kerplunk]

Jinx said:

kerplunk said:

Unsurprisingly Delingpole has misrepresented what the paper says:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/2...

Both interpretations are valid KP - that's the point of research, that others can take your findings and interpret them in new ways to advance understanding.

That requires reading the research and understanding it. I'd say that's doubtful in this case on both counts.

“It is not my job to sit down and read peer-reviewed papers because I simply haven’t got the time, or the scientific experise" - James Delingpole.

[kerplunk]

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

James Delingpole said:

In a new paper in the prestigious journal Nature Geoscience, the scientists who produce those doomsday reports for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have finally come clean — the computer models they’ve been using to predict runaway global warming are wrong, the planet has stubbornly refused to heat up anywhere near as much as they’d warned.

There you go Durbs

Unsurprisingly Delingpole has misrepresented what the paper says:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/2...

What would you expect from the Guardian, and crazy George Moonbat!!!!

You have mis-attributed the article's author(s).

[Jinx]

kerplunk said:

Jinx said:

kerplunk said:

Unsurprisingly Delingpole has misrepresented what the paper says:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/2...

Both interpretations are valid KP - that's the point of research, that others can take your findings and interpret them in new ways to advance understanding.

That requires reading the research and understanding it. I'd say that's doubtful in this case on both counts.

“It is not my job to sit down and read peer-reviewed papers because I simply haven’t got the time, or the scientific experise" - James Delingpole.

A quote out of context KP?

[kerplunk]

Globs said:

Durbster, the IPCC and AGW rest on that equilibrium equation: This is their foundation.
Your belief in global warming rests upon the IPCC and those AGW theories.
These are facts regardless of your recognition of them. If you deny this - why are you posting in the Science section?

durbster said:

Your point isn't worth considering unless you can provide evidence of your assertion that the models have been an "epic fail" and "grossly deficient".

Without that, you might as well be presenting an equation that "proves" birds can't fly.

Wrong, the failure of climate models is an output of the facts and logic, not an input.
The point of failing to consider the unknown side of the equilibrium is a causal failure of AGW.

AGW is built on the side of the outgoing radiation, it claims that our industrial gases are lowering the emission of heat radiation into space. But AGW assumes the incoming radiation is largely constant and completely ignores the factors that rule the incoming radiation side (the clouds) which must balance to achieve equilibrium, despite the clouds acting as a huge reflector to bounce incoming solar radiation back into space. This is the problem you are trying to avoid discussing.

To calculate the amount of solar radiation that does not get reflected and makes it to the ground or sea (which reflects some itself) you need to know the position, incident angles etc. None of this is covered by your models, even the basic albedo figure estimates are +/- 10% accuracy - 10 x the whole AGW effect as per IPCC's AR4 paper.

durbster said:

In the meantime, let's repeat it again. Maybe it'll become a catchphrase.

No cloud modelling = no albedo modelling = one side of the equilibrium ignored = no working climate model

Yes, you're starting to get it now.
Note again that 'no working climate model' is the OUTPUT of the facts and logic, not an input.

Yikes, the risk factor has gone up then. It's the IPCC scientists and their rubbish models that say we're unlikely to warm the earth enough to release the huge quantities of carbon locked up in methane hydrates etc and set off runaway warming.

[kerplunk]

Jinx said:

kerplunk said:

Jinx said:

kerplunk said:

Unsurprisingly Delingpole has misrepresented what the paper says:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/2...

Both interpretations are valid KP - that's the point of research, that others can take your findings and interpret them in new ways to advance understanding.

That requires reading the research and understanding it. I'd say that's doubtful in this case on both counts.

“It is not my job to sit down and read peer-reviewed papers because I simply haven’t got the time, or the scientific experise" - James Delingpole.

A quote out of context KP?

How is it out of context? It's his stated MO for how he goes about writing about climate science. He's an "interpreter of interpretations". His source is other people's interpretations of the research which he then re-interprets.

[Jinx]

kerplunk said:

How is it out of context? It's his stated MO for how he goes about writing about climate science. He's an "interpreter of interpretations". His source is other people's interpretations of the research which he then re-interprets.

Because it was a previous comment by Delingpol and not a quote from his take on the paper in question. Ergo not in context of this paper.