|
|
Post by thermostat on May 18, 2011 2:17:19 GMT
Astromet,
Let me second Richard's request; "That sounds made up. Got a cite?"
You wrote, 'Considering the fact that James Hansen has admitted man-made effects on the climate have been greatly exaggerated by computer models...'
What is your source for your comment? Sounds like something you picked up from some denialist blog post.
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on May 18, 2011 3:59:18 GMT
Astromet, Let me second Richard's request; "That sounds made up. Got a cite?" You wrote, 'Considering the fact that James Hansen has admitted man-made effects on the climate have been greatly exaggerated by computer models...' What is your source for your comment? Sounds like something you picked up from some denialist blog post. And you wonder why you get such abrasive responses..... How about coming clean that you fibbed about having full access to 'paywall' journal publications. BTW, Hansen doesn't need to admit to anything. Climate models have been wrong in every category related to climate processes, well documented in publications, and on "denialist" blogs. Truth is truth. Climate models are quite simply numerical expressions of the untested assumptions by modelers that create them. John Cook likes skulls full of mush that are easily brainwashed, hence one of your favorite source of disinformation. No doubt RealClimate, the motley crew they are, experts at character assassination and obfuscation, is another one of your blog sources. Nonetheless, here is the link to Hansen's make-it-up-as-you-go-along-backpedaling science. If you can't see what Hansen is doing, then enrolling in a cult deprogramming clinic may be advisable. is.gd/l46D6O |
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on May 18, 2011 4:06:20 GMT
Astromet, Let me second Richard's request; "That sounds made up. Got a cite?" You wrote, 'Considering the fact that James Hansen has admitted man-made effects on the climate have been greatly exaggerated by computer models...' What is your source for your comment? Sounds like something you picked up from some denialist blog post. And you wonder why you get such abrasive responses..... How about coming clean that you fibbed about having full access to 'paywall' journal publications. Magellan, Do you have a source for Astromet's comment? |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on May 18, 2011 4:16:42 GMT
And you wonder why you get such abrasive responses..... How about coming clean that you fibbed about having full access to 'paywall' journal publications. Magellan, Do you have a source for Astromet's comment? See above edited post. Frankly, every time you use the term "denialist", expect a volley back. |
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on May 18, 2011 4:22:11 GMT
Magellan, Do you have a source for Astromet's comment? See above edited post. Frankly, every time you use the term "denialist", expect a volley back. magellan, okay. got it. |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on May 18, 2011 12:09:36 GMT
Astromet, Let me second Richard's request; "That sounds made up. Got a cite?" You wrote, 'Considering the fact that James Hansen has admitted man-made effects on the climate have been greatly exaggerated by computer models...' What is your source for your comment? Sounds like something you picked up from some denialist blog post. I don't 'make things up,' Thermostat. Do you own homework and read more without presumption, which is the main problem you have when it comes to anything connected to the climate and weather. Hansen's paper -> arxiv.org/abs/1105.1140Also - you need to quit with the ideological terms like 'denialist' which confirms that your eyes are not open to the facts of the Earth's climate and weather. The Earth is not flat. The Earth lives in space and that is where our climate and weather emanates. As for 'citing' endless streams of scientific papers - There are tens of thousands of papers written, based on direct observation and correlations, which have proven that the Earth's climate comes from outer space and that the Sun drives our world's weather. I doubt that you've read even a tenth of these papers, or have made observations of the climate from where you are located. However, until you do so, you are not going to get anywhere near to being able to forecast the climate years into the future unless you get to the basics. You seem to prefer complication to interdisciplinary simplification, which is why you've bought into anthropogenic global warming while not knowing it is a mathematical impossibility on Earth that violates the laws of thermodynamics. Ideological jargon is not science and never will be. It has been the cause of everything that is wrong with climate science and has muddied the waters so much so that no amount of 'citing papers' will undo it until you unlearn what you have learned and get real to the laws of physics. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 18, 2011 14:51:41 GMT
You are incorrect. Hansen is saying that "most climate models mix heat too efficiently into the deep ocean and as a result underestimate the negative forcing by human-made aerosols". So he is saying that the model do the opposite of exaggerating the effect of man made aerosols. He doesn't resile at all from his belief that "The inferred planetary energy imbalance, 0.59 \pm 0.15 W/m2 during the 6-year period 2005-2010, provides fundamental verification of the dominant role of the human-made greenhouse effect in driving global climate change." Hansen would be as annoyed with you as you are with me for saying that you have admitted that all your forecasts are wrong. solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=globalwarming&thread=987&post=67704 |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 18, 2011 15:27:47 GMT
You are incorrect.
Hansen is saying that "most climate models mix heat too efficiently into the deep ocean and as a result underestimate the negative forcing by human-made aerosols". So he is saying that the model do the opposite of exaggerating the effect of man made aerosols.
The poster is correct Steve as the process you describe ensure the heat is reflected away from the planet, thus the models over exaggerated the warming of the planet as the heat is not on the planet. Its a real simple admission to make that seems so sacrilegious to true believers that they have to invent awkward phrases like "do the opposite of exaggerating" to avoiding speaking in a plain manner. It does seem science evidence for aerosols is mounting and it also seems the warmist community is religiously avoiding speaking of the most likely source of fluctuating aerosol effects.  The simple fact is Steve is that the evidence of this source of aerosol effects is mounting faster than the evidence of Hansen's source. Hansen simply will not admit to that as it conflicts with his religion.
|
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on May 18, 2011 15:35:38 GMT
You are incorrect. Hansen is saying that "most climate models mix heat too efficiently into the deep ocean and as a result underestimate the negative forcing by human-made aerosols". So he is saying that the model do the opposite of exaggerating the effect of man made aerosols. He doesn't resile at all from his belief that "The inferred planetary energy imbalance, 0.59 \pm 0.15 W/m2 during the 6-year period 2005-2010, provides fundamental verification of the dominant role of the human-made greenhouse effect in driving global climate change." Hansen would be as annoyed with you as you are with me for saying that you have admitted that all your forecasts are wrong. solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=globalwarming&thread=987&post=67704I could care less if you are 'annoyed' Steve as I am a free thinker and a professional forecaster. And for you to say that 'all my forecasts are wrong' speaks volumes about the bullshit you continue to spew on the Earth's climate, science and the laws of physics. So I do not care for what 'bothers you' in the least as I know for a fact your fuzzy math doesn't add up to anthro-anything because I am quite familiar with the laws of physics. I can and do out-forecast you and anyone else because I do not reject the laws which rule our planet's climate and weather. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on May 18, 2011 23:16:13 GMT
You are incorrect. Hansen is saying that "most climate models mix heat too efficiently into the deep ocean and as a result underestimate the negative forcing by human-made aerosols". So he is saying that the model do the opposite of exaggerating the effect of man made aerosols. He doesn't resile at all from his belief that "The inferred planetary energy imbalance, 0.59 \pm 0.15 W/m2 during the 6-year period 2005-2010, provides fundamental verification of the dominant role of the human-made greenhouse effect in driving global climate change." Hansen would be as annoyed with you as you are with me for saying that you have admitted that all your forecasts are wrong. solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=globalwarming&thread=987&post=67704He doesn't resile at all from his belief that "The inferred planetary energy imbalance, 0.59 \pm 0.15 W/m2 during the 6-year period 2005-2010, provides fundamental verification of the dominant role of the human-made greenhouse effect in driving global climate change." Translation: “People underestimate the power of models. Observational evidence is not very useful.” |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on May 19, 2011 17:07:27 GMT
You are incorrect.
Hansen is saying that "most climate models mix heat too efficiently into the deep ocean and as a result underestimate the negative forcing by human-made aerosols". So he is saying that the model do the opposite of exaggerating the effect of man made aerosols.
The poster is correct Steve as the process you describe ensure the heat is reflected away from the planet, thus the models over exaggerated the warming of the planet as the heat is not on the planet. Its a real simple admission to make that seems so sacrilegious to true believers that they have to invent awkward phrases like "do the opposite of exaggerating" to avoiding speaking in a plain manner. It does seem science evidence for aerosols is mounting and it also seems the warmist community is religiously avoiding speaking of the most likely source of fluctuating aerosol effects. The simple fact is Steve is that the evidence of this source of aerosol effects is mounting faster than the evidence of Hansen's source. Hansen simply will not admit to that as it conflicts with his religion. Very good point and clear explanation Icefisher. The problem, as it has been with Hansen & crew for nearly 30 years is that they do not know how to forecast - and they don't - which confirms that they do not know much about the Earth's climate and why it changes as it does naturally, forced from space. Check out this recent event by climate modelers as reported May 18, 2011 by Reuters: WASHINGTON, D.C. - Heavy rains, deep snowfalls, monster floods and killing droughts are signs of a "new normal" of extreme U.S. weather events fueled by climate change, scientists and government planners said on Wednesday.
"It's a new normal and I really do think that global weirding is the best way to describe what we're seeing," climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe of Texas Tech University told reporters.
"We are used to certain conditions and there's a lot going on these days that is not what we're used to, that is outside our current frame of reference," Hayhoe said on a conference call with other experts, organized by the non-profit Union of Concerned Scientists.
An upsurge in heavy rainstorms in the United States has coincided with prolonged drought, sometimes in the same location, she said, noting that west Texas has seen a record-length dry period over the last five years, even as there have been two 100-year rain events.
Hayhoe, other scientists, civic planners and a manager at the giant Swiss Re reinsurance firm all cited human-caused climate change as an factor pushing this shift toward more extreme weather.
While none would blame climate change for any specific weather event, Hayhoe said a background of climate change had an impact on every rainstorm, heat wave or cold snap.
"What we're seeing is the new normal is constantly evolving," said Nikhil da Victoria Lobo of Swiss Re's Global Partnerships team. "Globally what we're seeing is more volatility ... there's certainly a lot more integrated risk exposure."
Global weirding? Think of this: the Earth's weather is always changing as we have a highly variable climate system, as you would expect on a planet covered by oceans. Yet, we continue to hear these ideologists cite over and over the unproven and outlandish claim of "human-caused climate change as a factor pushing a shift toward more extreme weather." Where is the proof of such a claim? I keep asking to see it and I have not seen any proof whatsoever of man-made global warming or, as they say these days, "climate change" when the AGW ideologues pontificate. Day after day, month after month, and year after year, it seems they believe that by saying 'man-made global warming," or 'climate change' or the new term, 'anthropocene,' that repeating these terms will make it come true when there has been no proof of anything of the kind.The propaganda push to blame humanity for planetary climate change has been taught in schools and universities; spun a thousand different ways and back in the media, in scientific journals and peer-reviewed papers - yet there has not been a single shred of proof that humanity is the cause.Not one. The scientific community of ideologists continue to fail at seasonal forecasting as well. They did not forecast ENSO in advance and cannot forecast a month in advance yet we continue to hear blame on humanity for climate changes that come directly from the activity of the Sun and outer space. Methinks the ideologists protest too much about the "extreme weather" which I had forecasted by astronomic means years ago for this time. The Earth's climate has always been highly variable and we have always had storms, heavy rains, heavy snows, hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, etc. and all manner of weather on this planet since its origin. However, humanity cannot seem to catch a break with these hybrid ideologues who slither around for any crack they can make in order to graft in their AGW ideology into consciousness so that they can continue to receive tens of millions of dollars and euros in grants they do not deserve. When all is said and done - when people have come to the firm knowledge and conclusion that anthropogenic global warming was a total scam - then we will have justice. But valuable time will have been lost in prepping for the onset of global cooling - ever more so dangerous than global warming could ever be; yet few of these ideologues want to talk about it and I know that they do not see it coming because they can't forecast seasonally, much less years in advance. But, the ideologists contend humanity is the cause of climate change? How can humanity stop the power of the Sun? How can humanity change the laws of physics? The laws of thermodynamics? How is that even possible? |
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on May 20, 2011 2:37:26 GMT
Could someone here please articulate, briefly, how ENSO explains global climate?
That appears to be the premise of this discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on May 20, 2011 2:52:11 GMT
Regarding my previous post, I mean someone not Astromet.
'articulate'...
|
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on May 20, 2011 17:59:03 GMT
Could someone here please articulate, briefly, how ENSO explains global climate? That appears to be the premise of this discussion. There's plenty on this thread on ENSO which answers your question tstat. |
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on May 22, 2011 1:33:42 GMT
Could someone here please articulate, briefly, how ENSO explains global climate? That appears to be the premise of this discussion. There's plenty on this thread on ENSO which answers your question tstat. Astromet, "The man of many words". You are not the one I would ever expect to provide a concise response to some question; it is not your nature. Fair enough. |
|
