Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The first line is about a model. The problems with the "simple" (their words) models they have constructed are legion. No computer they have ever created has been anything more than a joke. Any reference to a model in the Abstract thus renders the entire study worthless. That's the whole point. AGW theory is based almost entirely on failed computer models.
Well, now, there's a scientific and objective way to clearly identify the nature and extent of the flaws you've identified with the research papers you seemingly haven't even bothered to read.
From what I can see there is no scientific discussion to be had with the majority of people who reject climate science. Since they are rejecting science as a whole.
This article contains the most basic science that clearly establishes just how we can be sure that virtually all the excess carbon in the atmosphere since the early 1800s comes from fossil fuel sources.
See
How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to ...
It is extremely well researched, provided multiple citations and innumerable references to very well established science as well as depending on multiple published works.
But its cast aside as a "lie"
I don't think its really possible to discuss science with people who insist science is a "lie"
Does using biodiesel and wood pellets result in a smaller carbon footprint?
I asked him twice and twice he refuses to answer it.
Actually I answered it by asking if you understood the concept of carbon neutral. Which I don't think you do at this point.
You might want to look up the carbon cycle and see how using fossil fuels effects one footprint vs using renewables and carbon neutral fuels.
It will fast become obvious that by using carbon neutral fuels less fossil fuels are used and less fossil C ends up in the atmosphere INCREASING CO2.
I try and form my answers so that those asking the questions are led to a place of greater understanding. Just answering scattered individual questions isn't a very good educational plan. If you want to communicate climate science to the public its going to have to be done in such a way that it educates them on science in general.
You never answered it, it is a simple yes or no answer.
Science is not a yes or no proposition
Often to give an accurate answer one must offer an explanation as to why things are the way they are. Or thats how the educational process works. There are those people who don't want to be educated.
Actually it is. Bad science is not a yes or no proposition. But science concerns itself with facts. Facts are either yes or no. Equivocating is the realm of psychics, charlatans and climate "scientists".
ALL of your comments are basically you declaring that such is such and lets not talk about it. That is the mantra of the AGW crowd. I choose to remain anonymous, go figure with the loons on this site and others. However I follow the scientific method. That is all you need to do is follow that system and you will see why AGW theory has failed.
Surely, if you follow the scientific method, to say nothing of understanding how to do so rigorously, you'd have noticed the thing being evaluated by the authors of the ACCM paper you cited isn't even something the creator of that thing claims it does. Or in other words, you'd have noticed that, allegorically speaking, the authors of the ACCM paper effectively "tested a bicycle, confirmed that it will not fly, and then spent a lot of effort showing why it won't fly. This, in spite of the bike's maker never having said it would fly."
I am certain the sentence highlighted in red has a typo in it. It should read, "However, I follow my own scientific method." You know what, you just keep following it. At least now I know.
I asked him twice and twice he refuses to answer it.
Actually I answered it by asking if you understood the concept of carbon neutral. Which I don't think you do at this point.
You might want to look up the carbon cycle and see how using fossil fuels effects one footprint vs using renewables and carbon neutral fuels.
It will fast become obvious that by using carbon neutral fuels less fossil fuels are used and less fossil C ends up in the atmosphere INCREASING CO2.
I try and form my answers so that those asking the questions are led to a place of greater understanding. Just answering scattered individual questions isn't a very good educational plan. If you want to communicate climate science to the public its going to have to be done in such a way that it educates them on science in general.
You never answered it, it is a simple yes or no answer.
Science is not a yes or no proposition
Often to give an accurate answer one must offer an explanation as to why things are the way they are. Or thats how the educational process works. There are those people who don't want to be educated.
Actually it is. Bad science is not a yes or no proposition. But science concerns itself with facts. Facts are either yes or no. Equivocating is the realm of psychics, charlatans and climate "scientists".
No it isn't. Science is concerned with data and evidence, every once in a blue moon something is so well founded with the science that it is made law. Like the Laws of physics. Beyond that everything is theory, Everything.
Climate science just like any other is based of long and careful examination of the data. The theory is such because a hypothesis was able to meet the criteria. Those criteria are extremely rigid. The theory of Rapid Global Climate Shift met those rigid criteria.
The ability to predict is one of those criteria.
Climate science has predicted many things since Arrhenius first accurate predictions nearly 125 years ago.
He could probably do better by switching to natural gas.Does using biodiesel and wood pellets result in a smaller carbon footprint?I like the idea of a Clean Debate Zone.
I'm not a climate scientist but I do have a pretty good handle on the concepts surrounding climate change.
If you have any questions or have any answers, have at it.
My personal take is that climate change is very real and poses a very real threat to the future of not only mankind but a significant portion of life on earth.
Personally I run my vehicles on biodiesel, my home on wood pellets. I'm working on getting off the elec grid and I try and be responsible with what materials I purchase.
Its not much, but every little bit helps
I asked him twice and twice he refuses to answer it.
Once again you are missing the concept of carbon neutral fuels
Oops guess I was wrong...if your going to link real climate then I can link this
Biofuels Are Not a Green Alternative to Fossil Fuels | World Resources Institute
Burning biomass, whether directly as wood or in the form of ethanol or biodiesel, emits carbon dioxide just like burning fossil fuels. In fact, burning biomass directly emits a bit more carbon dioxide than fossil fuels for the same amount of generated energy. But most calculations claiming that bioenergy reduces greenhouse gas emissions relative to burning fossil fuels do not include the carbon dioxide released when biomass is burned. They exclude it based on the assumption that this release of carbon dioxide is matched and implicitly offset by the carbon dioxide absorbed by the plants growing the biomass.
Yet if those plants were going to grow anyway, simply diverting them to bioenergy does not remove any additional carbon from the atmosphere and therefore does not offset the emissions from burning that biomass.
.
He could probably do better by switching to natural gas.Does using biodiesel and wood pellets result in a smaller carbon footprint?
I asked him twice and twice he refuses to answer it.
Once again you are missing the concept of carbon neutral fuels
Oops guess I was wrong...if your going to link real climate then I can link this
Biofuels Are Not a Green Alternative to Fossil Fuels | World Resources Institute
Burning biomass, whether directly as wood or in the form of ethanol or biodiesel, emits carbon dioxide just like burning fossil fuels. In fact, burning biomass directly emits a bit more carbon dioxide than fossil fuels for the same amount of generated energy. But most calculations claiming that bioenergy reduces greenhouse gas emissions relative to burning fossil fuels do not include the carbon dioxide released when biomass is burned. They exclude it based on the assumption that this release of carbon dioxide is matched and implicitly offset by the carbon dioxide absorbed by the plants growing the biomass.
Yet if those plants were going to grow anyway, simply diverting them to bioenergy does not remove any additional carbon from the atmosphere and therefore does not offset the emissions from burning that biomass.
.
Clearly neither you nor the authors of that piece comprehend the carbon cycle or the benefit of burning carbon already in the system vs releasing more
I''m out.
I don't think its possible to have an informed discussion with people who refuse to be informed. Rejecting even the simplest of science like isotopic measurements as a lie is simply not something I'm willing to try and combat.
The simple reality is the science and the scientists who observe it virtually All say the same thing. Yet we have roughly 35% of the US population who adamantly refuse to face these simple facts.
I believe Jerry said it best
You aint going to learn
What you don't want to know
I have read it. What I find astonishing is the fact that you who know nothing about science refuse to learn anything about it. This is the reality about the computer models that you are so proud of. they suck. They more than suck. They use simple computer models (once again their words) to attempt to describe the most complex engine on this planet, namely the climate. It is no wonder they can't succeed at even the most basic of renderings.
The most complex computer models in existence on this planet are used by aircraft and racecar manufacturers. They are called computational fluid dynamic models and they cost tens of millions of dollars and they are run by up to a hundred people using the most advanced computers out there and their only job is to figure out the aerodynamics of a single part and how it will react to airflow. That's it. And they fail 90% of the time.
You think that your computer models which have a ZERO percent accuracy rate are somehow compelling to a scientist like me? Get real.
ALL of your comments are basically you declaring that such is such and lets not talk about it. That is the mantra of the AGW crowd. I choose to remain anonymous, go figure with the loons on this site and others. However I follow the scientific method. That is all you need to do is follow that system and you will see why AGW theory has failed.
I have read it. What I find astonishing is the fact that you who know nothing about science refuse to learn anything about it. This is the reality about the computer models that you are so proud of. they suck. They more than suck. They use simple computer models (once again their words) to attempt to describe the most complex engine on this planet, namely the climate. It is no wonder they can't succeed at even the most basic of renderings.
The most complex computer models in existence on this planet are used by aircraft and racecar manufacturers. They are called computational fluid dynamic models and they cost tens of millions of dollars and they are run by up to a hundred people using the most advanced computers out there and their only job is to figure out the aerodynamics of a single part and how it will react to airflow. That's it. And they fail 90% of the time.
You think that your computer models which have a ZERO percent accuracy rate are somehow compelling to a scientist like me? Get real.
Okay, Mr. "I follow the scientific method." Let's just look at the unsubstantiated assertions in the short post above.
In light of your making nearly the same logical error as did the authors of the ACCM paper you cited earlier, I'm beginning to think you might have been one of those authors, or perhaps one of their grad student assistants, or maybe even just one of their kids.
- you who know nothing about science
- you...refuse to learn anything about [science]
- you are proud of computer models
- the reality about the computer models... is that they suck
- [Computer models] use simple computer models to attempt to describe the...climate.
- The most complex computer models in existence on this planet are used by aircraft and racecar [sic] manufacturers.
- That one is not only unsubstantiated in your post, it may not even true, for still it's just you saying so.
- The cost or purpose, of a computer modeling tool is, or who uses it, or how many people do so doesn't say a damn thing about whether that computer modeling tool has the superlative quality of being "the most." But whether the modeling program type you cited is or is not "the most" complex ones in existence is irrelevant to the point that follows. Not one scientist who uses the scientific method would offer as you did a litany of remarks having no rigorously definable logical correlation to the assertion those remarks must support..
I''m out.
I don't think its possible to have an informed discussion with people who refuse to be informed. Rejecting even the simplest of science like isotopic measurements as a lie is simply not something I'm willing to try and combat.
The simple reality is the science and the scientists who observe it virtually All say the same thing. Yet we have roughly 35% of the US population who adamantly refuse to face these simple facts.
I believe Jerry said it best
You aint going to learn
What you don't want to know
I''m out.
I don't think its possible to have an informed discussion with people who refuse to be informed. Rejecting even the simplest of science like isotopic measurements as a lie is simply not something I'm willing to try and combat.
The simple reality is the science and the scientists who observe it virtually All say the same thing. Yet we have roughly 35% of the US population who adamantly refuse to face these simple facts.
I believe Jerry said it best
You aint going to learn
What you don't want to know
I predicted you would say this on the first page after my first post.
First you dance and weave around the question
Then when confronted for a debate , you pout, say everyone is wrong and want to run off.
.
I have a PhD in geology so I know more about science, and the scientific method than you ever will. Where do you get the impression that I am "proud" of computer models? They are tools. Some are good, most are bad. The ACCM's are among the worst ever created. Any time you have a model that is so bad that no matter what numbers you plug into it you always get a trend in one direction you have a problem. And not a little one. And that is the reality of every single ACCM EVER created.
And yes the cost of a computer model has a direct bearing on its usefulness. The CFD models that I referenced are by far the most complex models ever developed. And they have to be, in one arena lives depend on their accuracy, and in the other hundreds of millions of dollars are spent to make parts that will give you .01 seconds per lap advantage over your competition.
You simply have no clue what you are talking about.
Why?ALL of your comments are basically you declaring that such is such and lets not talk about it. That is the mantra of the AGW crowd. I choose to remain anonymous, go figure with the loons on this site and others. However I follow the scientific method. That is all you need to do is follow that system and you will see why AGW theory has failed.
Surely, if you follow the scientific method, to say nothing of understanding how to do so rigorously, you'd have noticed the thing being evaluated by the authors of the ACCM paper you cited isn't even something the creator of that thing claims it does. Or in other words, you'd have noticed that, allegorically speaking, the authors of the ACCM paper effectively "tested a bicycle, confirmed that it will not fly, and then spent a lot of effort showing why it won't fly. This, in spite of the bike's maker never having said it would fly."
I am certain the sentence highlighted in red has a typo in it. It should read, "However, I follow my own scientific method." You know what, you just keep following it. At least now I know.
Until you can present me with a ACCM that can accurately recreate the weather that occurred one day ago you have nothing usable. You need to have a model that can take every bit of data that we have and be able to do a hindcast (that's what the creators of EVERY legitimate model use as a calibration tool to make sure that they are not creating a tool that will give fallacious results) of the weather that just occurred. It's truly that simple.
To date they have never even attempted to make a model capable of doing that very simple thing.
Why?ALL of your comments are basically you declaring that such is such and lets not talk about it. That is the mantra of the AGW crowd. I choose to remain anonymous, go figure with the loons on this site and others. However I follow the scientific method. That is all you need to do is follow that system and you will see why AGW theory has failed.
Surely, if you follow the scientific method, to say nothing of understanding how to do so rigorously, you'd have noticed the thing being evaluated by the authors of the ACCM paper you cited isn't even something the creator of that thing claims it does. Or in other words, you'd have noticed that, allegorically speaking, the authors of the ACCM paper effectively "tested a bicycle, confirmed that it will not fly, and then spent a lot of effort showing why it won't fly. This, in spite of the bike's maker never having said it would fly."
I am certain the sentence highlighted in red has a typo in it. It should read, "However, I follow my own scientific method." You know what, you just keep following it. At least now I know.
Until you can present me with a ACCM that can accurately recreate the weather that occurred one day ago you have nothing usable. You need to have a model that can take every bit of data that we have and be able to do a hindcast (that's what the creators of EVERY legitimate model use as a calibration tool to make sure that they are not creating a tool that will give fallacious results) of the weather that just occurred. It's truly that simple.
To date they have never even attempted to make a model capable of doing that very simple thing.
The point of the models is not to predict the weather at all. The global temperature is a complex system but not near as massively complex is the entire weather system. What those models are supposed to predict is just the average temperature based on increasing CO2. All the models have to hindcast would be the average global temperature of yesterday (or last year to be more precise). That is, of course, the accuracy that is important. The question is then has there been a model that can accurately predict past global temperatures based off carbon readings? Do those models account for the average energy coming from the sun at that time?
I'm afraid your post is highly ambiguous, if you could be more specific maybe i can figure out what your question might be
Don't have question. Solar radiation is incoming (~70% gets thru?), The reflected energy is outgoing they named it infared (different wavelength?) 30% gets out. Earlier you said CO2 causes more to be trapped outgoing. More CO2 = more trapping? more GW? need data to prove this theory. I don't have any data. I don't have a graph. I may look into it someday.
Well now wait a minute, Solar radiation is incoming but its measured in watts per meter as is the outgoing radiation. CO2 is a greenhouse gas but I didn't mention anything about trapping or outgoing. although your comment was somewhat unclear. CO2 = a longer residency time of the total solar irradiation. Once again the data and experiments you are talking about are all extremely old science, say 125 years ago Arrhenius calculated the consequences of varying amounts of additional CO2 in the atmosphere. He eventually became the chair of the Nobel Prize Committee.
If you are trying to make a statement then please lets use standard weights and measures, otherwise you might as well be talking gibberish. If you are trying to pose a question, then kindly base it on a correct premise.
Thats because you may not be aware of both long and short wave radiation. A greenhouse gas is such because it is of the right size and shape that it reflects a very specific type of radiation or frequency. The frequency of radiation that enters the atmosphere from the sun is different than the frequency of radiation that reflects from the earths surface
ahhhh.......OK. I read a bit. Solar radiation passed thru more easily 70% than infared radiation gets back out 30%?
if you say so...........hmmmmm. How can we argue this? later?
