Climate sensitivity

Wow your silliness never ceases to amaze me. You cry...."don't direct you to a post" and then provide a post. That is flippin way too funny my silly man.

Man it must hurt to have one of yours turn on you. What are you worried about anyway, your other silly partner doesn't see him as an important asset.

And yes you win top loser award!!! I'd call it a zero!

 

I've won and feeding time is over.

 

Whew, good thing cause I thought you'd explode chewing on and eating so many disbeliefs.

 

A denier screaming denier. That's cute. Of course the comments are incomprehensible. One more denialist fist fight with phantoms of his own making. Climate science does not stand or follow on what a short term model predicts. Since 1880 when earth temperatures were first being tracked two highs were reached that weren't reached again for over 30 years. The last temperature high was 2010. Come back after 2040 and begin your hollering again. But of course evidence isn't what denialists are about. It's all about wanta believe. That's why they can come back and make the same debunked argument again and again and never be ashamed.

 

By the way, here is the von Storch interview in Der Spiegel. No way does he reject AGW. He simply takes a conservative approach to it, recognizing the political realities and not believing it will be as devastating as advertised, at least for a while. His main cautionary point is science should not out run the evidence and there are other matters to also be concerned about. He is definitely a 97% guy but with a little less sense of urgency perhaps than some of his colleagues. I'm a bit surprised that he didn't mention the ocean take up of the increased solar energy capture as being part of the reason the last 15 years of air temperature has been close to steady. Also recently there has come to be a greater appreciation of the role of volcanic aerosoles in reflecting back some sunlight.

http://www.spiegel.de/international...lems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html

 

Again reading is a virtue. I never said he didn't. I know you all never like to admit you got something wrong, so I know you won't go re-read my post.

What he says is he doesn't understand how the models were wrong, but they are wrong. It is clear that the CO2 levels went up, but for fifteen years the temperatures did not track like the models predicted. In fact, it is he who states that 98% of the models were wrong. What does that mean? It means the scientist need to revisit. It is not a done deal. So, whatever it is he believes, he is certain that 98% of models were wrong. Oh and what does that mean? it means that CO2 increases are not affecting temperatures the way he thought. Hmm... sort of what we've been saying.

 

Dude you are making a mountain out of a molehill. Here are the money quotes.

Models are always being adjusted with new data coming in. Denialists find this a profound indictment for some reason whereas it is about as inevitable as 2+2=4.

 

Did I misquote him? Did he not say that only 2% of the models were close? That means 98% were wrong. So, 98% of the 97%'rs got it wrong and you're telling me that isn't a big deal. Again, adjustment on your side to avoid having to just admit your wrong. WRONG.... Simply put you have no evidence, Von Storch has no evidence. He just can't believe they missed it, and unfortunately for him, he doesn't have an explanation. none. So, go get an explanation on why the temperatures do what they do and come back to us. That's all. We don't need politicians telling the public to panic. Do you understand that?

 

In fact he supplies two explanations for the high ball predictions and in no way does he suggest they are anything other than science in progress. Try reading. Your apples and oranges comparison of the 97 and 98 percent is so ludicrous it doesn't deserve a comment. Simple scientific methodology and logic apparently aren't being taught in our schools so I guess certain folks have to come on these forums to see what it looks like, but unfortunately it still doesn't take. Early imprinting rules I guess.

 

Evidently understanding true science and modelling also does not fair well in schools either. GIGO, Garbage In, Garbage Out. They missed the mark because they have missed something else fundamental. They don't even know what it is yet but still "bully on" with dire predictions for politicians.

 

The two hottest topics in climate change these days—1) that climate models have done remarkably poorly in replicating the evolution of global temperature during the past several decades , and 2) that high end climate change scenarios from the models are largely unsupported by observations.

 

Quit spamming, for cause:

10. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OPINION AND FACT

Anyone is free to express any opinion they wish, as long as it's within the guidelines, or assert any fact. However, for the purpose of civil and productive discussion, it's sometimes important to differentiate between the two. If a poster continually asserts something as a specific historical fact, they must be prepared to substantiate it as fact if challenged to do so by another poster, through a link that is credible in the judgment of moderators or administrators.

If a moderator calls upon you to verify an assertion and you are unable to do so, you must be willing to acknowledge that it is an opinion rather than a fact, or that - even though you believe it to be true - you can not substantiate it. If you continue to assert as absolute fact something that you cannot validate, it may be considered thread derailment. The fact that someone is asking another poster for a cite does not necessarily mean that a moderator will agree that one is necessary, and asking for frivolous cites may also be regarded as thread derailment.

Keep in mind that we are not going to apply this rule the instant someone makes a questionable claim. We're only going to consider applying the rule if, in the opinion of a moderator, a discussion becomes stalled on an unsubstantiated claim. Hash it out among yourselves first. A poster who appears to be abusing this rule to harass another member or otherwise interfere with a discussion will be subject to infraction himself/herself.

-------------------

All or most of your posts are troll-spam.

You have no links, to:

1. climate models, or
2. scenarios, relative to climate models.

You spam, without reference, to how most global warming is traveling, in oceanic sub-strata, while most surface temp warming is in the northern hemisphere, so most climate modeling is tied up, in ENSO, which predictions are getting more accurate, but so what?

YOU SPAM. What are we, British subjects, of the American, post-WWII meat market?

Get a Jack's bacon-inside burger and analyze it, or something more interesting, than your many thousands, of narcissistic spammers, or be reported, some more.

 

DID I MISQUOTE HIM? It is a simple question, can you answer that?

 

LOL, that is not opinion but fact and not in question so FAIL.

Dr. Peter Stott of the U.K.’s Hadley Center was a contributing author to Chapter 10 “Global Climate Projections” of the 2007 U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report.

He is also the lead author of a new paper just published in the scientific journal Environmental Research Letters.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/1/014024

You should try and keep up with current events in global warming.

 

Getting back on track, here is the opening post again.

More on the topic from hockey stick creator Michael Mann.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-e-mann/climate-danger-threshold_b_4994235.html

More specifically.

Disaster now.

 

So Mann was wrong the first time so what makes anyone think he is right this time. Also, his hockey stick has been debunked by all except Mann and the cartoonists website.

 

Being debunked by denialists is like being debunked by the flat earth wing of the Mickey Mouse Club. LOL

 

Being fed a line of B.S. by algoreists is like listening to Barack Obama.

 

LOL, that, my friends, is the extend of a true believers ability to debate.

 

You mean, shoot down the moronic misinformation and myths being pushed by the duped denier cultists with the actual scientific facts. In contrast to the unsupported anti-science claims of the denier cultists that have no actual scientific supporting evidence to back them up.

 

No, I mean exactly what you are doing now. This infantile expression ignoring all other facts.

 

You have no facts, you poor denier cult dupe. All you've got are the anti-science myths, misinformation and outright lies that form the dogmas of your insane little cult of reality denial.

 

What you really mean is that you ignore any science that does not fit your bias.

 

My "bias" is towards the actual truth of the matter. Your bias is to deny the actual science in favor of the lies, misinformation and propaganda put out by the fossil fuel industry in their insane campaign to prevent meaningful restrictions on carbon emissions by deceiving the public about the scientifically established reality and dangers of AGW/CC.

Your idiotic post here presupposes that there is some valid science disputing the world scientific community's scientific conclusions on AGW. Unfortunately for your denier cult delusions, there isn't any such science for me to "ignore" even if I wanted to. The science very clearly supports the Theory of AGW.

 

LOL, again the "fossil fuel" bunk. You have only insults instead of actually looking at any science that is not advocacy.