97% Scientists agree AGAIN

[gslack]

So the Hansen 83 paper uses the Trenberth 97 paper as a guideline. OK.



No. I made it because I've never heard of using the Trenberth energy budget to compute the Coriolis force. I just use 2 Omega X (rho*V). Its not any kind of expert knowledge, its something you can find in any high school physics book. What I do find interesting is the idea of using a climate model which includes no rotation to compute the Coriolis force. Can you please explain how this is done?



So the 83 Hansen paper used the 97 Trenberh paper to create its model?



I learned about the Coriolis force in 1995 in high school. The internet was kinda new, I didn't really have good access to it. If I had perhaps I could have learned how to use the Trenberth energy budget to calculate the Coriolis force.




We've had a nice discussion and all, but I was wondering, are you ever going to name a GCM computer model that doesn't have a rotating spherical Earth?

When you calculate an atmospheric model, you have some parameters, some limitations or guidelines that give your model limitations, which make it a more reliable, more accurate model.

For instance, you can't juts create a model to show it being 100 F at the poles in july, why? Because you have limitations that try and keep it within a set of parameters.. Get it yet silly man?

Are you saying that your models are not within the energy levels accepted in Trenberth's energy budget? Really? LOL, and we can no longer even pretend you know what your talking about can we.. Thanks pooppie doo...

So the 1983 Hansen model is based on the model published in the 97 Trenberth paper?



You said that the term "calculate" in the code comment

C**** CALCULATE CORIOLIS PARAMETER 448.

means "a calculation, based on what? Well for starters, an energy budget."
So according to you, the calculation of the Corilois parameter is based on an energy budget. http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/294156-97-scientists-agree-again-9.html#post7264588

I'd really love to know how that's done.

Funny but most people who actually do that sort of thing, do it this way..Amazing what a person can google up..LOL

2 Omega X (rho*V) is the exact same thing except its in units of force per unit volume instead of force. But I'm sure you knew that, I guess you're just trying to be funny.

Deliberate obfuscation doesn't help you...

If you are making an atmospheric computer model, do just make up your parameters as you go along? Well obviously you do, but those who actually do the work thankfully do not. They have some set pre-defined parameters which keep things in a realistic fashion. So when the models are put to use to show a climate those findings are compared to things like Trenberth to build various things like forecasts, reconstructions, etc and so on. Your silly pedantic game is pathetic..

Without an energy budget going in a person can take his model and have it show anything. Tropical weather at the poles, near freezing conditions in the tropics, anything. Set parameters limit the computer calculations and keep the analysis in check with reality..

Catching on yet? No of course not because you just want to grandstand and pose. That's okay poo poo, we know it's obvious..

LOL, you said Coriolis Force correct? That is the equation to determine it, your nonsense about "2 Omega X (rho*V) is the exact same thing except its in units of force per unit volume instead of force. " is just rambling talk.. Tell me phony, how else would you show Coriolis Force in a system like this? In fact what do you consider the "force' to be in this instance if not units of force per unit of volume?

LOL, just googled yourself into a hole again poopie pants...

Please go and google more vernacular you don't understand, we love this game. It's you beating yourself with a stick over and over again...ROFL.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

When you calculate an atmospheric model, you have some parameters, some limitations or guidelines that give your model limitations, which make it a more reliable, more accurate model.

For instance, you can't juts create a model to show it being 100 F at the poles in july, why? Because you have limitations that try and keep it within a set of parameters.. Get it yet silly man?

Are you saying that your models are not within the energy levels accepted in Trenberth's energy budget? Really? LOL, and we can no longer even pretend you know what your talking about can we.. Thanks pooppie doo...

So the 1983 Hansen model is based on the model published in the 97 Trenberth paper?



You said that the term "calculate" in the code comment

means "a calculation, based on what? Well for starters, an energy budget."
So according to you, the calculation of the Corilois parameter is based on an energy budget. http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/294156-97-scientists-agree-again-9.html#post7264588

I'd really love to know how that's done.

Funny but most people who actually do that sort of thing, do it this way..Amazing what a person can google up..LOL

2 Omega X (rho*V) is the exact same thing except its in units of force per unit volume instead of force. But I'm sure you knew that, I guess you're just trying to be funny.

Deliberate obfuscation doesn't help you...

If you are making an atmospheric computer model, do just make up your parameters as you go along? Well obviously you do, but those who actually do the work thankfully do not. They have some set pre-defined parameters which keep things in a realistic fashion.

Without an energy budget going in a person can take his model and have it show anything. Tropical weather at the poles, near freezing conditions in the tropics, anything. Set parameters limit the computer calculations and keep the analysis in check with reality..

Catching on yet? No of course not because you just want to grandstand and pose. That's okay poo poo, we know it's obvious..

OK. How does any of that change the fact that the model in the 83 Hansen paper has rotation and a spherical Earth?

LOL, you said Coriolis Force correct? That is the equation to determine it, your nonsense about "2 Omega X (rho*V) is the exact same thing except its in units of force per unit volume instead of force. " is just rambling talk.. Tell me phony, how else would you show Coriolis Force in a system like this? In fact what do you consider the "force' to be in this instance if not units of force per unit of volume?

How would I show it?
Its 2*rho*v X Omega.

That's how I would show it. rho is fluid mass density, v is fluid velocity, Omega is the angular velocity vector. Do you need to know anything else?




So are you saying the 83 Hansen model is based on the 97 Trenberth energy budget?

Will you please name a single GCM for use on a supercomputer that does not have rotation and a spherical Earth? Thanks.

 

[GHook93]

I remember learning in grade school that the ozone hole was growing larger and larger and the effects were unstoppable! It scared the absolute shit out of me and I chastized my parents for turning ont he A/C. Into highschool I started to hear less about this global danger. In college in was no longer taught. Now you never hear about it, because the EnviroNazis are onto the new environmental hoax of global warming.

Was it real? I don't know, but I think it was another leftist over-reaching in a faux effort to say mother Earth!

http://www.rolf-martens.com/news_with_brief_comments.html
As time has passed since these bans were enacted, it has become increasingly difficult for the ruling reactionaries to cover up the fact that there has been no "depletion" at all of the global ozone layer and that the Antarctic "ozone hole" is only a seasonal phenomenon. That "hole" was discovered already back in 1956 when there was practically no CFC use, and has not increased since then. In "reports" to the contrary, various tricks have been used, such as changes of definition of "the ozone hole" and of methods of measuring it. A detailed discussion and refutation of this propaganda hoax readers can find for instance in my "UNITE! Info #166en", part 1/8 etc, of 20.03.2002.

Supposedly, according to the "ozone hole" propaganda, the global ozone layer would "continue to be depleted" for several decades also after the CFC bans of 1987 etc, since these substances would "continue to reach the stratosphere" - indeed, the "very worst depletion" would occur "around 2000-2002", this propaganda said. The SMHI measurements, as everybody can see, clearly refute this, and refute the entire proposition that a "global ozone layer depletion" has occurred after the 1950s-60s. (This does not prevent some false "ozone hole" propaganda from being disseminated by the SMHI website too.)

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Supposedly, according to the "ozone hole" propaganda, the global ozone layer would "continue to be depleted" for several decades also after the CFC bans of 1987 etc,

Like this?

 

[RollingThunder]

The Cooling world!!!

Here is the clip:

tp://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/05/21/1975-tornado-outbreaks-blamed-on-global-cooling/]1975 : Tornado Outbreaks Blamed On Global Cooling | Real Science

It basically says that the it's undisputable that the Earth is cooling and will have drastic effects. The main one they point out is the great bread baskets of the world will dry up and food production will be a so low every part of the planet will be in an endless famine!

They even said the science community is UNANIMOUS on this conclusion!

They even used, wait get this, the tornados in the US as evidence of this!

Would you say the science community (or media the hype it) was wrong? Ubetchya!

You're a genuine denier cult retard, all right, gooky, seeped in the myths, misinformation and lies of your astroturfed little cult of reality denial and getting all of your mistaken info from deliberately deceptive denier cult blogs.

The facts about the denier cult myth: "they said it was cooling in the 70s":

Study debunks 'global cooling' concern of '70s
USA TODAY
By Doyle Rice
2/22/2008
(Excerpts)
The supposed "global cooling" consensus among scientists in the 1970s — frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can't make up their minds — is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era. The '70s was an unusually cold decade. Newsweek, Time, The New York Times and National Geographic published articles at the time speculating on the causes of the unusual cold and about the possibility of a new ice age. But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends. The study reports, "There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales."

"I was surprised that global warming was so dominant in the peer-reviewed literature of the time," says Peterson, who was also a contributor to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007 report. Scientific reports in the past decade, most notably the U.N. panel's Nobel Prize-winning efforts, have warned that human activities are warming the planet by increasing the release of heat-trapping "greenhouse" gases into the atmosphere. However, as Peterson notes in the paper, "even cursory review of the news media coverage of the issue reveals that, just as there was no consensus at the time among scientists, so was there also no consensus among journalists." Robert Henson, a writer at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and author of The Rough Guide to Climate Change, says: "People have long claimed that scientists in the 1970s were convinced a new ice age was imminent. But in fact, many researchers at the time were already more concerned about the long-term risks of global warming." Along with Peterson, the study was also authored by William Connolly of the British Antarctic Survey and John Fleck of The Albuquerque Journal. The research will be published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

Copyright 2011 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

 

[gslack]

So the 1983 Hansen model is based on the model published in the 97 Trenberth paper?



You said that the term "calculate" in the code comment

means "a calculation, based on what? Well for starters, an energy budget."
So according to you, the calculation of the Corilois parameter is based on an energy budget. http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/294156-97-scientists-agree-again-9.html#post7264588

I'd really love to know how that's done.




2 Omega X (rho*V) is the exact same thing except its in units of force per unit volume instead of force. But I'm sure you knew that, I guess you're just trying to be funny.

Deliberate obfuscation doesn't help you...

If you are making an atmospheric computer model, do just make up your parameters as you go along? Well obviously you do, but those who actually do the work thankfully do not. They have some set pre-defined parameters which keep things in a realistic fashion.

Without an energy budget going in a person can take his model and have it show anything. Tropical weather at the poles, near freezing conditions in the tropics, anything. Set parameters limit the computer calculations and keep the analysis in check with reality..

Catching on yet? No of course not because you just want to grandstand and pose. That's okay poo poo, we know it's obvious..

OK. How does any of that change the fact that the model in the 83 Hansen paper has rotation and a spherical Earth?

LOL, you said Coriolis Force correct? That is the equation to determine it, your nonsense about "2 Omega X (rho*V) is the exact same thing except its in units of force per unit volume instead of force. " is just rambling talk.. Tell me phony, how else would you show Coriolis Force in a system like this? In fact what do you consider the "force' to be in this instance if not units of force per unit of volume?

How would I show it?
Its 2*rho*v X Omega.

That's how I would show it. rho is fluid mass density, v is fluid velocity, Omega is the angular velocity vector. Do you need to know anything else?




So are you saying the 83 Hansen model is based on the 97 Trenberth energy budget?

Will you please name a single GCM for use on a supercomputer that does not have rotation and a spherical Earth? Thanks.

No poopie pats. I said several times what the case is, you keep pretending it didn't happen.. I told you, I explain over and again yet you somehow want to continure trying to make the same false claim.. Are you retarded? Slow? Comprehension problems? WHat is it that makes you unable to stop telling the same already disproved claim? I think it's not your ignorance, but rather your belief that everyone else is that drives you to pull this stunt..

So you think everyone else here is too stupid to realize what you are doing? Of course you do.. The problem is, you aren't smart enough to realize just how transparent your BS has become now.. Let's fix that shall we...

So your contention is that "2*rho*v X Omega." Is the correct way and that this accepted version is not wrong per say but not entirely accurate. Because as you put it earlier;"except its in units of force per unit volume instead of force"

Interesting claim considering in an atmospheric climate model that is how force is measured. LOL, what do you think force is in this instance but units of force per unit of volume? It's silly argument showing your desire to pretend some level of expertise you do obviously don't have.. AGAIN...

It's okay, we have seen many fake physicists on here, one more isn't a shock.. Mamooth loves using the same tactic a lot. he also tries to techno-babble down debate with googled terms he doesn't understand.

Frankly I'm not a atmospheric climate modeler, I'm a Data Analyst, but I know enough to know a fake when I see one. And from your inaccurate use of terms, obfuscation of my posts with things you pull out of your butt and general ineptitude with data you bring up, it's all too obvious..

You keep pretending that theoretical climate model papers published in 1984 are are relevant today, and even tried to imply that Trenberth is the same. You are wrong and were wrong on both counts. Then your argument went to try and claim that a 1984 paper can trump trenberth's energy budget and whatever it deems the energy budget to be is fine. In what sense? The fact is without an energy budget to go by any climate model is useless.

If you weren't such a weasel, I wouldn't have to explain this time and again, but here we are..

So now your pretense is to attribute false claims to me and ramble.. Nice try...Like all the other internet forum physicists we have come across on here, you too show yourself to be a posturing peacock with google..

The dead give away here is, the equation I gave is accurate and factual in this instance, you know this because your googling told you so. Yours was not the correct one for this matter, and again you know this know because of google. It's a fine example of why you google fakes always tell on yourselves in the end. You just can't fake this when it's questioned you fail..

LOL, good job poopie pants, you just outed another fake physicist.

 

[RollingThunder]

Deliberate obfuscation doesn't help you...

If you are making an atmospheric computer model, do just make up your parameters as you go along? Well obviously you do, but those who actually do the work thankfully do not. They have some set pre-defined parameters which keep things in a realistic fashion.

Without an energy budget going in a person can take his model and have it show anything. Tropical weather at the poles, near freezing conditions in the tropics, anything. Set parameters limit the computer calculations and keep the analysis in check with reality..

Catching on yet? No of course not because you just want to grandstand and pose. That's okay poo poo, we know it's obvious..

OK. How does any of that change the fact that the model in the 83 Hansen paper has rotation and a spherical Earth?

LOL, you said Coriolis Force correct? That is the equation to determine it, your nonsense about "2 Omega X (rho*V) is the exact same thing except its in units of force per unit volume instead of force. " is just rambling talk.. Tell me phony, how else would you show Coriolis Force in a system like this? In fact what do you consider the "force' to be in this instance if not units of force per unit of volume?

How would I show it?
Its 2*rho*v X Omega.

That's how I would show it. rho is fluid mass density, v is fluid velocity, Omega is the angular velocity vector. Do you need to know anything else?




So are you saying the 83 Hansen model is based on the 97 Trenberth energy budget?

Will you please name a single GCM for use on a supercomputer that does not have rotation and a spherical Earth? Thanks.

No poopie pats. I said several times what the case is, you keep pretending it didn't happen.. I told you, I explain over and again yet you somehow want to continure trying to make the same false claim.. Are you retarded? Slow? Comprehension problems? WHat is it that makes you unable to stop telling the same already disproved claim? I think it's not your ignorance, but rather your belief that everyone else is that drives you to pull this stunt..

So you think everyone else here is too stupid to realize what you are doing? Of course you do.. The problem is, you aren't smart enough to realize just how transparent your BS has become now.. Let's fix that shall we...

So your contention is that "2*rho*v X Omega." Is the correct way and that this accepted version is not wrong per say but not entirely accurate. Because as you put it earlier;"except its in units of force per unit volume instead of force"

Interesting claim considering in an atmospheric climate model that is how force is measured. LOL, what do you think force is in this instance but units of force per unit of volume? It's silly argument showing your desire to pretend some level of expertise you do obviously don't have.. AGAIN...

It's okay, we have seen many fake physicists on here, one more isn't a shock.. Mamooth loves using the same tactic a lot. he also tries to techno-babble down debate with googled terms he doesn't understand.

Frankly I'm not a atmospheric climate modeler, I'm a Data Analyst, but I know enough to know a fake when I see one. And from your inaccurate use of terms, obfuscation of my posts with things you pull out of your butt and general ineptitude with data you bring up, it's all too obvious..

You keep pretending that theoretical climate model papers published in 1984 are are relevant today, and even tried to imply that Trenberth is the same. You are wrong and were wrong on both counts. Then your argument went to try and claim that a 1984 paper can trump trenberth's energy budget and whatever it deems the energy budget to be is fine. In what sense? The fact is without an energy budget to go by any climate model is useless.

If you weren't such a weasel, I wouldn't have to explain this time and again, but here we are..

So now your pretense is to attribute false claims to me and ramble.. Nice try...Like all the other internet forum physicists we have come across on here, you too show yourself to be a posturing peacock with google..

The dead give away here is, the equation I gave is accurate and factual in this instance, you know this because your googling told you so. Yours was not the correct one for this matter, and again you know this know because of google. It's a fine example of why you google fakes always tell on yourselves in the end. You just can't fake this when it's questioned you fail..

LOL, good job poopie pants, you just outed another fake physicist.

Just more idiotic nonsense from the troll who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Tom Zeller Jr.: Scientists Agree (Again): Climate Change Is Happening

... a team of researchers to painstakingly comb through the abstracts of more than 12,000 scientific articles published between 1991 and 2011 to determine just how much scientific agreement exists on the subject of climate change, and humanity's role in driving it.

Americans? Global Warming Beliefs and Attitudes in April 2013 | Yale Project on Climate Change Communication

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW [anthropogenic global warming], 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

Sounds very convincing.....so why do they have to falsify data and prevent other scientists from getting published? Hide the decline? Use Mike's nature trick?

 

[westwall]

Can you justify that statement with evidence?
Every single person I know that has died, has died of natural causes. I know people are often murdered and die in accidents - but I find it hard to believe that "death due to all natural causes is down"



How much?

Google it yourself poopy.

Ok well if you don't wanna justify your arguments then we don't need to have a debate.

No, dumbass. YOU have made the statement that the weather now is extraordinary. I have stated it is normal or even better. It is UP TO YOU to support your position. That's called science idiot. I thought you were one...

 

[ScienceRocks]

Google it yourself poopy.

Ok well if you don't wanna justify your arguments then we don't need to have a debate.

No, dumbass. YOU have made the statement that the weather now is extraordinary. I have stated it is normal or even better. It is UP TO YOU to support your position. That's called science idiot. I thought you were one...

If anything it has been slower tornado wise. We're below normal. A typical year can have 17? ef 3s(at least)for the United states. What's big is this one hit a very densely populated area.

 

[gslack]

OK. How does any of that change the fact that the model in the 83 Hansen paper has rotation and a spherical Earth?



How would I show it?
Its 2*rho*v X Omega.

That's how I would show it. rho is fluid mass density, v is fluid velocity, Omega is the angular velocity vector. Do you need to know anything else?




So are you saying the 83 Hansen model is based on the 97 Trenberth energy budget?

Will you please name a single GCM for use on a supercomputer that does not have rotation and a spherical Earth? Thanks.

No poopie pats. I said several times what the case is, you keep pretending it didn't happen.. I told you, I explain over and again yet you somehow want to continure trying to make the same false claim.. Are you retarded? Slow? Comprehension problems? WHat is it that makes you unable to stop telling the same already disproved claim? I think it's not your ignorance, but rather your belief that everyone else is that drives you to pull this stunt..

So you think everyone else here is too stupid to realize what you are doing? Of course you do.. The problem is, you aren't smart enough to realize just how transparent your BS has become now.. Let's fix that shall we...

So your contention is that "2*rho*v X Omega." Is the correct way and that this accepted version is not wrong per say but not entirely accurate. Because as you put it earlier;"except its in units of force per unit volume instead of force"

Interesting claim considering in an atmospheric climate model that is how force is measured. LOL, what do you think force is in this instance but units of force per unit of volume? It's silly argument showing your desire to pretend some level of expertise you do obviously don't have.. AGAIN...

It's okay, we have seen many fake physicists on here, one more isn't a shock.. Mamooth loves using the same tactic a lot. he also tries to techno-babble down debate with googled terms he doesn't understand.

Frankly I'm not a atmospheric climate modeler, I'm a Data Analyst, but I know enough to know a fake when I see one. And from your inaccurate use of terms, obfuscation of my posts with things you pull out of your butt and general ineptitude with data you bring up, it's all too obvious..

You keep pretending that theoretical climate model papers published in 1984 are are relevant today, and even tried to imply that Trenberth is the same. You are wrong and were wrong on both counts. Then your argument went to try and claim that a 1984 paper can trump trenberth's energy budget and whatever it deems the energy budget to be is fine. In what sense? The fact is without an energy budget to go by any climate model is useless.

If you weren't such a weasel, I wouldn't have to explain this time and again, but here we are..

So now your pretense is to attribute false claims to me and ramble.. Nice try...Like all the other internet forum physicists we have come across on here, you too show yourself to be a posturing peacock with google..

The dead give away here is, the equation I gave is accurate and factual in this instance, you know this because your googling told you so. Yours was not the correct one for this matter, and again you know this know because of google. It's a fine example of why you google fakes always tell on yourselves in the end. You just can't fake this when it's questioned you fail..

LOL, good job poopie pants, you just outed another fake physicist.

Just more idiotic nonsense from the troll who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.

Translation, don't pick on my friend!

 

[RollingThunder]

Tom Zeller Jr.: Scientists Agree (Again): Climate Change Is Happening

... a team of researchers to painstakingly comb through the abstracts of more than 12,000 scientific articles published between 1991 and 2011 to determine just how much scientific agreement exists on the subject of climate change, and humanity's role in driving it.

Americans? Global Warming Beliefs and Attitudes in April 2013 | Yale Project on Climate Change Communication

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW [anthropogenic global warming], 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

Sounds very convincing.....

The scientific evidence is, in fact, so extremely convincing that it has sucessfully convinced virtually the entire world scientific community and most government and business leaders that anthropogenic global warming and its associated climate changes are real and a serious threat to our civilization and our world. Some of the public (like you, toad) have been duped into doubting the actual scientific consensus by the fossil fuel industry propaganda campaign.

so why do they have to falsify data and prevent other scientists from getting published?

They don't have to falsify data. Mountains of data and evidence on all aspects of this matter have been gathered and analyzed by tens of thousands of scientists all around the world. The data and other evidence completely supports the conclusions of the climate scientists in many ways that are impossible to falsify, you poor dupe. How do you "falsify" the melting of the Arctic ice cap, nitwit? The only scientists who couldn't get their stuff published were the ones whose work was shoddy and couldn't stand up to peer review. Some corrupt scientists take money to stooge for the fossil fuel industry, just like some of them did for the tobacco companies. Those lies you parrot are just more of the propaganda being pushed by those with a vested interest in fossil fuel profits.

Hide the decline? Use Mike's nature trick?

You poor clueless bamboozled fool....

Clearing up misconceptions regarding 'hide the decline'
Skeptical Science
by Doug Bostrom
updated on 12 March 2013
(excerpts)
There are a number of misconceptions concerning Phil Jones' email. These are easily cleared up when one takes the time to read Jones' words in context. The "decline" is about northern tree-rings, not global temperature. Phil Jones' email is often cited as evidence of an attempt to "hide the decline in global temperatures". This claim is patently false and shows ignorance of the science discussed. The decline actually refers to a decline in tree growth at certain high-latitude locations since 1960. Tree-ring growth has been found to match well with temperature. Hence, tree-rings are used to plot temperature going back hundreds of years. However, tree-rings in some high-latitude locations diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. This is known as the "divergence problem". Consequently, tree-ring data in these high-latitude locations are not considered reliable after 1960 and should not be used to represent temperature in recent decades. Phil Jones talks about "Mike's Nature trick" and "hide the decline" as two separate techniques. However, people often abbreviate the email, distilling it down to "Mike's trick to hide the decline". "I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."

It's clear that "Mike's Nature trick" is quite separate to Keith Briffa's "hide the decline". "Mike's Nature trick" refers to a technique (a "trick of the trade") by Michael Mann to plot recent instrumental data along with reconstructed past temperature. This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales. There is nothing secret about "Mike's trick". Both the instrumental and reconstructed temperature are clearly labelled. Claiming this is some sort of secret "trick" or confusing it with "hide the decline" displays either ignorance or a willingness to mislead. The "decline" has been openly and publicly discussed since 1995. Skeptics like to portray "the decline" as a phenomena that climate scientists have tried to keep secret. In reality the divergence problem has been publicly discussed in the peer-reviewed literature since 1995 (Jacoby 1995). The IPCC discuss the decline in tree-ring growth openly both in the 2001 Third Assessment Report and in even more detail in the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report. The common misconception that scientists tried to hide a decline in global temperatures is false. The decline in tree-ring growth is plainly discussed in the publicly available scientific literature. The divergence in tree-ring growth does not change the fact that we are currently observing many lines of evidence for global warming. The obsessive focus on a misquote taken out of context, doesn't change the scientific case that human-caused climate change is real.

 

[gslack]

Tom Zeller Jr.: Scientists Agree (Again): Climate Change Is Happening



Americans? Global Warming Beliefs and Attitudes in April 2013 | Yale Project on Climate Change Communication

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

Sounds very convincing.....

The scientific evidence is, in fact, so extremely convincing that it has sucessfully convinced virtually the entire world scientific community and most government and business leaders that anthropogenic global warming and its associated climate changes are real and a serious threat to our civilization and our world. Some of the public (like you, toad) have been duped into doubting the actual scientific consensus by the fossil fuel industry propaganda campaign.

so why do they have to falsify data and prevent other scientists from getting published?

They don't have to falsify data. Mountains of data and evidence on all aspects of this matter have been gathered and analyzed by tens of thousands of scientists all around the world. The data and other evidence completely supports the conclusions of the climate scientists in many ways that are impossible to falsify, you poor dupe. How do you "falsify" the melting of the Arctic ice cap, nitwit? The only scientists who couldn't get their stuff published were the ones whose work was shoddy and couldn't stand up to peer review. Some corrupt scientists take money to stooge for the fossil fuel industry, just like some of them did for the tobacco companies. Those lies you parrot are just more of the propaganda being pushed by those with a vested interest in fossil fuel profits.

Hide the decline? Use Mike's nature trick?

You poor clueless bamboozled fool....

Clearing up misconceptions regarding 'hide the decline'
Skeptical Science
by Doug Bostrom
updated on 12 March 2013
(excerpts)
There are a number of misconceptions concerning Phil Jones' email. These are easily cleared up when one takes the time to read Jones' words in context. The "decline" is about northern tree-rings, not global temperature. Phil Jones' email is often cited as evidence of an attempt to "hide the decline in global temperatures". This claim is patently false and shows ignorance of the science discussed. The decline actually refers to a decline in tree growth at certain high-latitude locations since 1960. Tree-ring growth has been found to match well with temperature. Hence, tree-rings are used to plot temperature going back hundreds of years. However, tree-rings in some high-latitude locations diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. This is known as the "divergence problem". Consequently, tree-ring data in these high-latitude locations are not considered reliable after 1960 and should not be used to represent temperature in recent decades. Phil Jones talks about "Mike's Nature trick" and "hide the decline" as two separate techniques. However, people often abbreviate the email, distilling it down to "Mike's trick to hide the decline". "I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."

It's clear that "Mike's Nature trick" is quite separate to Keith Briffa's "hide the decline". "Mike's Nature trick" refers to a technique (a "trick of the trade") by Michael Mann to plot recent instrumental data along with reconstructed past temperature. This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales. There is nothing secret about "Mike's trick". Both the instrumental and reconstructed temperature are clearly labelled. Claiming this is some sort of secret "trick" or confusing it with "hide the decline" displays either ignorance or a willingness to mislead. The "decline" has been openly and publicly discussed since 1995. Skeptics like to portray "the decline" as a phenomena that climate scientists have tried to keep secret. In reality the divergence problem has been publicly discussed in the peer-reviewed literature since 1995 (Jacoby 1995). The IPCC discuss the decline in tree-ring growth openly both in the 2001 Third Assessment Report and in even more detail in the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report. The common misconception that scientists tried to hide a decline in global temperatures is false. The decline in tree-ring growth is plainly discussed in the publicly available scientific literature. The divergence in tree-ring growth does not change the fact that we are currently observing many lines of evidence for global warming. The obsessive focus on a misquote taken out of context, doesn't change the scientific case that human-caused climate change is real.

Yes yes BIG FONT..

You really are ridiculous man.. ROFL, everything is explained if your fon'ts big and bold enough.. See...

TROLLING BLUNDER IS A TROLL!!!!

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

So your contention is that "2*rho*v X Omega." Is the correct way and that this accepted version is not wrong per say but not entirely accurate. Because as you put it earlier;"except its in units of force per unit volume instead of force"

Interesting claim considering in an atmospheric climate model that is how force is measured. LOL, what do you think force is in this instance but units of force per unit of volume? It's silly argument showing your desire to pretend some level of expertise you do obviously don't have.. AGAIN...

Grid based fluid dynamics code stores the momenta as momenta density. So you need the force per unit volume in that case.

Frankly I'm not a atmospheric climate modeler,

I'm shocked.

You keep pretending that theoretical climate model papers published in 1984 are are relevant today, and even tried to imply that Trenberth is the same.

The current NASA model is based on their earlier models.

The fact is without an energy budget to go by any climate model is useless.

I thought you said you weren't a climate modeller. Yet somehow you think you know better what a climate model needs than climate modellers. How is that? Well since you know so much can you explain how to put the energy budget into the equations in Table I ? http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1983/1983_Hansen_etal.pdf

 

[gslack]

Grid based fluid dynamics code stores the momenta as momenta density. So you need the force per unit volume in that case.


I'm shocked.


The current NASA model is based on their earlier models.


I thought you said you weren't a climate modeller. Yet somehow you think you know better what a climate model needs than climate modellers. How is that? Well since you know so much can you explain how to put the energy budget into the equations in Table I ? http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1983/1983_Hansen_etal.pdf

Oh good the pedantic overload tactic, love it...

And we are discussing things regarding THIS SPECIFIC TOPIC are we not? Yes, so you can stop trying to grandstand and save face now. You're busted faking it again, no big deal you get caught all the time, Im sure nobody even noticed...LOL.

You are shocked we know, because someone had the Gaul to actually test your fake "expert" nonsense and nail you.. Get over yourself poopie pants, your shtick isn't even clever..

So what if the NASA are based on their earlier models, how does that address my statement? LOL, just you trying to posture again.. Peacock...

Yes,yes google up more papers that do not add to or alter the point.. Nice.. tell me silly google scientist and fake forum expert on climate modeling, or anything related to science that suits your needs today, What happens to climate models that do not show they are within the accepted energy budget of the planet??

Come on smart guy, tell me.. I'll ask it again...

What happens to climate models that do not show they are within the accepted energy budget of the planet??

BTW, The budget most widely accepted is you got it Trenberth's.

I'll give you a hint; it's kind of like what happened to your credibility as a "whatever scientific field suits your needs today" right now...

 

[RollingThunder]

Sounds very convincing.....

The scientific evidence is, in fact, so extremely convincing that it has sucessfully convinced virtually the entire world scientific community and most government and business leaders that anthropogenic global warming and its associated climate changes are real and a serious threat to our civilization and our world. Some of the public (like you, toad) have been duped into doubting the actual scientific consensus by the fossil fuel industry propaganda campaign.





They don't have to falsify data. Mountains of data and evidence on all aspects of this matter have been gathered and analyzed by tens of thousands of scientists all around the world. The data and other evidence completely supports the conclusions of the climate scientists in many ways that are impossible to falsify, you poor dupe. How do you "falsify" the melting of the Arctic ice cap, nitwit? The only scientists who couldn't get their stuff published were the ones whose work was shoddy and couldn't stand up to peer review. Some corrupt scientists take money to stooge for the fossil fuel industry, just like some of them did for the tobacco companies. Those lies you parrot are just more of the propaganda being pushed by those with a vested interest in fossil fuel profits.

Hide the decline? Use Mike's nature trick?

You poor clueless bamboozled fool....

Clearing up misconceptions regarding 'hide the decline'
Skeptical Science
by Doug Bostrom
updated on 12 March 2013
(excerpts)
There are a number of misconceptions concerning Phil Jones' email. These are easily cleared up when one takes the time to read Jones' words in context. The "decline" is about northern tree-rings, not global temperature. Phil Jones' email is often cited as evidence of an attempt to "hide the decline in global temperatures". This claim is patently false and shows ignorance of the science discussed. The decline actually refers to a decline in tree growth at certain high-latitude locations since 1960. Tree-ring growth has been found to match well with temperature. Hence, tree-rings are used to plot temperature going back hundreds of years. However, tree-rings in some high-latitude locations diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. This is known as the "divergence problem". Consequently, tree-ring data in these high-latitude locations are not considered reliable after 1960 and should not be used to represent temperature in recent decades. Phil Jones talks about "Mike's Nature trick" and "hide the decline" as two separate techniques. However, people often abbreviate the email, distilling it down to "Mike's trick to hide the decline". "I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."

It's clear that "Mike's Nature trick" is quite separate to Keith Briffa's "hide the decline". "Mike's Nature trick" refers to a technique (a "trick of the trade") by Michael Mann to plot recent instrumental data along with reconstructed past temperature. This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales. There is nothing secret about "Mike's trick". Both the instrumental and reconstructed temperature are clearly labelled. Claiming this is some sort of secret "trick" or confusing it with "hide the decline" displays either ignorance or a willingness to mislead. The "decline" has been openly and publicly discussed since 1995. Skeptics like to portray "the decline" as a phenomena that climate scientists have tried to keep secret. In reality the divergence problem has been publicly discussed in the peer-reviewed literature since 1995 (Jacoby 1995). The IPCC discuss the decline in tree-ring growth openly both in the 2001 Third Assessment Report and in even more detail in the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report. The common misconception that scientists tried to hide a decline in global temperatures is false. The decline in tree-ring growth is plainly discussed in the publicly available scientific literature. The divergence in tree-ring growth does not change the fact that we are currently observing many lines of evidence for global warming. The obsessive focus on a misquote taken out of context, doesn't change the scientific case that human-caused climate change is real.

Yes yes BIG FONT..

LOLOLOLOL.....and so the retarded troll once again ignores the information that debunks his demented myths and obsesses about the formatting. Pure trolling off-topic distraction tactic.

everything is explained if....

LOLOLOL.....for politically motivated retards like you, slackjawed, nothing is ever explained, no matter how much evidence is presented, because you are basically a closed-minded, brainwashed, anti-science, conspiracy-theory-nutjob moron, deluded by the Dunning-Kruger Effect into imagining that you know more about climate science than the professional climate scientists. You're either an easy and willing target of the fossil fuel industry's propaganda campaign or you're a paid agent of disinformation, collecting a check from Exxon or the Koch brothers for spreading their lies, smears and reality denial. Either way , you are A TROLL.

 

[gslack]

The scientific evidence is, in fact, so extremely convincing that it has sucessfully convinced virtually the entire world scientific community and most government and business leaders that anthropogenic global warming and its associated climate changes are real and a serious threat to our civilization and our world. Some of the public (like you, toad) have been duped into doubting the actual scientific consensus by the fossil fuel industry propaganda campaign.





They don't have to falsify data. Mountains of data and evidence on all aspects of this matter have been gathered and analyzed by tens of thousands of scientists all around the world. The data and other evidence completely supports the conclusions of the climate scientists in many ways that are impossible to falsify, you poor dupe. How do you "falsify" the melting of the Arctic ice cap, nitwit? The only scientists who couldn't get their stuff published were the ones whose work was shoddy and couldn't stand up to peer review. Some corrupt scientists take money to stooge for the fossil fuel industry, just like some of them did for the tobacco companies. Those lies you parrot are just more of the propaganda being pushed by those with a vested interest in fossil fuel profits.





You poor clueless bamboozled fool....

Clearing up misconceptions regarding 'hide the decline'
Skeptical Science
by Doug Bostrom
updated on 12 March 2013
(excerpts)
There are a number of misconceptions concerning Phil Jones' email. These are easily cleared up when one takes the time to read Jones' words in context. The "decline" is about northern tree-rings, not global temperature. Phil Jones' email is often cited as evidence of an attempt to "hide the decline in global temperatures". This claim is patently false and shows ignorance of the science discussed. The decline actually refers to a decline in tree growth at certain high-latitude locations since 1960. Tree-ring growth has been found to match well with temperature. Hence, tree-rings are used to plot temperature going back hundreds of years. However, tree-rings in some high-latitude locations diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. This is known as the "divergence problem". Consequently, tree-ring data in these high-latitude locations are not considered reliable after 1960 and should not be used to represent temperature in recent decades. Phil Jones talks about "Mike's Nature trick" and "hide the decline" as two separate techniques. However, people often abbreviate the email, distilling it down to "Mike's trick to hide the decline". "I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."

It's clear that "Mike's Nature trick" is quite separate to Keith Briffa's "hide the decline". "Mike's Nature trick" refers to a technique (a "trick of the trade") by Michael Mann to plot recent instrumental data along with reconstructed past temperature. This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales. There is nothing secret about "Mike's trick". Both the instrumental and reconstructed temperature are clearly labelled. Claiming this is some sort of secret "trick" or confusing it with "hide the decline" displays either ignorance or a willingness to mislead. The "decline" has been openly and publicly discussed since 1995. Skeptics like to portray "the decline" as a phenomena that climate scientists have tried to keep secret. In reality the divergence problem has been publicly discussed in the peer-reviewed literature since 1995 (Jacoby 1995). The IPCC discuss the decline in tree-ring growth openly both in the 2001 Third Assessment Report and in even more detail in the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report. The common misconception that scientists tried to hide a decline in global temperatures is false. The decline in tree-ring growth is plainly discussed in the publicly available scientific literature. The divergence in tree-ring growth does not change the fact that we are currently observing many lines of evidence for global warming. The obsessive focus on a misquote taken out of context, doesn't change the scientific case that human-caused climate change is real.

Yes yes BIG FONT..

LOLOLOLOL.....and so the retarded troll once again ignores the information that debunks his demented myths and obsesses about the formatting. Pure trolling off-topic distraction tactic.

everything is explained if....

LOLOLOL.....for politically motivated retards like you, slackjawed, nothing is ever explained, no matter how much evidence is presented, because you are basically a closed-minded, brainwashed, anti-science, conspiracy-theory-nutjob moron, deluded by the Dunning-Kruger Effect into imagining that you know more about climate science than the professional climate scientists.

uh-huh, now you resort to quote editing? Well, I guess your breakdown is near completion. Well it's been real nice getting know you troll. Soon you won't be an issue any longer just keep this up.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

So what if the NASA are based on their earlier models, how does that address my statement?

Well for one thing it renders false your claim that all the GCM's don't included a spherical rotating Earth.

What happens to climate models that do not show they are within the accepted energy budget of the planet??

Accepted how?

 

[SSDD]

Extreme weather is a fantasy of the environmental k00ks........


Completely made up shit.........


The Fantasy of Extreme Weather | Behind The Black

What happened yesterday was extreme weather.

What happened yesterday was just weather...bad weather but weather none the less. Certainly not the worst ever and far worse happened prior to CO2 reaching "dangerous" levels.

Extreme weather is just a bullshit cliche invented by warmers so that they could claim every instance of bad weather was due to non existent anthropogenic global warming.

 

[SSDD]

Extreme weather is a fantasy of the environmental k00ks........


Completely made up shit.........


The Fantasy of Extreme Weather | Behind The Black

What happened yesterday was extreme weather.

To the contrary, what happened yesterday was typical weather for OK. Tornadoes happen all the time in tornado alley.

Ergo the name "Tornado Alley". Warmers just don't think. They feel, they fear, they often decend into hysterics but rarely, if ever do they think.