|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 3, 2013 22:00:06 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Apr 4, 2013 14:58:07 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Apr 4, 2013 15:13:05 GMT
Flannery in Australia droughts were the new normal due climate change - followed by floods - which now (un)surprisingly are the new normal due climate change
The same script has been passed to the UK Met Office, forecasting continued drought from April last year (to the extent that water standards people were extremely concerned) due of course to climate change - followed by floods in UK - which now (un)surprisingly are the new normal we should expect these heavy rains due to climate change.
The same for the effect of high melt levels in the Arctic - it was going to make everything hotter and drier Mediterranean climate in North UK... it got colder and wetter and sure enough - the effect of high melt levels in the Arctic - is now going to make everything colder and wetter.
The only constant - you have to pay us more for research/computers/in taxes RIGHT NOW or it will runaway and get WORSE!
The thing that needs to be done is to identify the grifter, the shills and the patsies
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 4, 2013 16:24:00 GMT
|
|
fred
New Member
Posts: 48
|
Post by fred on Apr 4, 2013 20:23:24 GMT
A novice question.
Are the effects of CO2 upon the atmosphere also determined by models as it appears to be difficult to measure the effects practically. I don't mean in glass bottles either.
|
|
|
|
Post by cuttydyer on Apr 5, 2013 21:32:24 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by dontgetoutmuch on Apr 5, 2013 23:09:21 GMT
A novice question. Are the effects of CO2 upon the atmosphere also determined by models as it appears to be difficult to measure the effects practically. I don't mean in glass bottles either. Hello Fred, Back before AGW was a religion, the original AGW theory predicted that increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere would act as a blanket, trapping heat and warming the planet. The entire movement (And boy is it a big movement!) was based upon this fact. To test the theory, proponents predicted that a mid-tropospheric hot spot would be detectable at low latitudes. Proponents have spent decades and billions of dollars trying to identify anything to hold up as proof, but in every single test, the data has indicated the there is no warming present. In fact many of the test results had the opposite of the expected outcome. Simply put. There is no empirical evidence. None. That supports AGW proponents position. Experiments originally designed and carried out by AGW proponents conclusively proved that AGW theory has been falsified. There is a reason that AGW proponents predictions are no longer testable. Every single TESTABLE prediction made by AGW proponents has failed. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 6, 2013 1:41:03 GMT
|
|
fred
New Member
Posts: 48
|
Post by fred on Apr 6, 2013 21:30:01 GMT
God it's so easy to make money. Invent a model, feed it any data you want that gets you the result you want and they pay up.
I spent many years doing drug research and would have loved to have models like this. We would have killed a few people but what the heck the money would roll in.
How sad that science had been reduced to such a low level.
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 7, 2013 3:21:35 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 7, 2013 3:22:11 GMT
Also involved in the hydro cycle is a huge amount of heat transfer. And we wonder.....why are the models doing poorly?  |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 7, 2013 3:27:18 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 7, 2013 20:21:36 GMT
sigurdur, By putting up a graph like that, with no citation, you are essentially claiming Bob Tisdale is an idiot. Comparing the means from the models with the actuality from one earth is pointless. It's like comparing the mean of many coin tossing models (49.9% heads, 50.1% tails) with one actual coin toss (either 100% heads or 100% tails) and saying the models are wrong. If you compare the means from the model with *any* single model simulation you probably won't get a match either. Possibly Bob Tisdale did not claim it. Link to the article, not one image. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 7, 2013 20:26:23 GMT
Scratch that - I've now read what the post is saying. Bob is looking for a signal in a very short period of observations.
Obviously, the difference in the trend in the obs and the model mean is nowhere near statistically significant, so the models are doing acceptably, and it is you who doesn't seem to have a clue - sorry about that, but you were rather blunt yourself.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 7, 2013 23:58:35 GMT
sigurdur, By putting up a graph like that, with no citation, you are essentially claiming Bob Tisdale is an idiot. Comparing the means from the models with the actuality from one earth is pointless. It's like comparing the mean of many coin tossing models (49.9% heads, 50.1% tails) with one actual coin toss (either 100% heads or 100% tails) and saying the models are wrong. If you compare the means from the model with *any* single model simulation you probably won't get a match either. Possibly Bob Tisdale did not claim it. Link to the article, not one image. LOL! Steve the coin tossing model would predict with absolute certainty the condition you describe after one toss. Did the climate models do that? Hee hee! The problem here Steve is the climate models predicted certainty of warming using argumentum ad igorantium, a fallacy. Now you want somebody to prove they are wrong. What I would do since there are all sorts of information already out there to validate them should warming take off, I would defund them in the meantime and fund research into causes for natural variation. If they get back on track they would be great candidates for refunding in the meantime we might be able to learn something about climate change as opposed to just butting our heads into an unmoving wall. The coin toss model? Heck its performing exactly as designed!!! |
|
