Arctic sea ice BACK to Normal!

[Big Fitz]

I'd sooner believe gremlins were the root cause. Probably a more accurate model too.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbJx-FJS5Rc]Bugs Bunny - Falling Hare - YouTube[/ame]


SHHHHH!!!!!

 

[code1211]

That science works in the opposite way than you suggested, and that the models we have now are far more sophisticated than the toy model of Arrhenius.

Can you read?

Then this challenge should be an easy one to answer.

Produce the model that accurately predicts the climate since 1980 or 1990 or 2000. This demands that the model you present was created before the date at which the predicted period starts.

I'll wait here.

Hell, let them use a model created yesterday. They're all equally useless at prediction. Hell, they can't recreate what we KNOW occured.....yesterday!

That's not true. There are various models that can predict the preceding 30 years. When the models are applied to future, they seem to weaken a tad.

 

[westwall]

Then this challenge should be an easy one to answer.

Produce the model that accurately predicts the climate since 1980 or 1990 or 2000. This demands that the model you present was created before the date at which the predicted period starts.

I'll wait here.

Hell, let them use a model created yesterday. They're all equally useless at prediction. Hell, they can't recreate what we KNOW occured.....yesterday!

That's not true. There are various models that can predict the preceding 30 years. When the models are applied to future, they seem to weaken a tad.

Really? Do tell.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Hundred thousandaires? I suggest you look at the $900,000 Mann recieved for ONE grant.

That has got to be the dumbest statement you've ever made. Grant money isn't paid into scientists' personal checking accounts you fucking dolt, its paid to cover their research expenses.

How abouOr how about the $1.2 MILLION that Hansen recieved for one speaking gig

I suppose all climate scientists are as filthy rich as the most famous ones - we can only assume this - no data needed.


Jeez - Carl Sagan made a ton of money - I'm an astrophysicist - so by your logic I must be loaded with cash. I also got a grant of 2.5 MILLION service units on LONI computing clusters - man I've been livin it up with those SU's!

I'd have to sink pretty low to get to your level of stupidity. Take a look at their sources of income nimrod. They get millions of dollars in grants every year.

Grants are not income for scientists moron, they go to cover research costs. In my field they cover the cost of publishing, the cost of graduate students and post-doctoral researchers, and computing equipment. Some grants allow professors to buy out their summer teaching duties with part of the money so they can have more time for research. It doesn't increase the professors salary - the money goes to hire an instructor to take his place.
Any questions or will you insist on ignorance?

They also get at least 200,000 per year as a tenured professor.

At least? Really?
My professor makes $140,00 a year. He been working for 30 years and is near retirement and is the director of one of the Universities most prestigious research departments - and he still hasn't gotten to your "at least 200k" figure. Seriously - did you make that shit up?

Some get 400,000 plus.

400k? seriously? I know for a fact there isn't a single professor at a state school in Louisiana making that, because the highest paid state employee in Louisiana is Les Miles and his state salary is 300k per year.


I WISH I would make "at least" 200k if I could be a professor. Unfortunately the average pay for a starting assistant prof is barely more than 50k!

Just go away spidey tooberpoopeydoo. How many other names do you have?

Professors at most state institutions have their salaries publicly available. For instance, LSU:

LSU Salary Database - Misc - The Daily Reveille - Louisiana State University

I'm certain that if profs made "at least" 200k a year - you'd be able to find the evidence.

But you can't.

So better to just make shit up.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Didn't read the abstracts did you? No, I thought not. I would expect more from an astrophysicist...I really would. Oh yeah, one more thing. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE "studies" IS A COMPUTER MODEL.

You said the scientists were ignoring natural causes.

Clearly, as I have shown with my links - they not only do not ignore them, they write papers about them.

So its quite obvious you were wrong.

Why can't you accept that?

Scientists are supposed to OBSERVE the natural world. These "scientists" write fiction about the real world and fools like you eat it up.

Clearly, as I have shown with my links - they not only do not ignore natural causes, they write papers about them.

So its quite obvious you were wrong.

Why can't you accept that?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Please, feel free to produce a model that accurately predicts climate across a 30 year period.

Please, feel free to produce a model that accounts for recent warming trends without including anthropogenic effects.

You claim you've got the goods.

Where?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I'd have to sink pretty low to get to your level of stupidity. Take a look at their sources of income nimrod. They get millions of dollars in grants every year. They also get at least 200,000 per year as a tenured professor. Some get 400,000 plus.

Senior Climate Scientist Salary in Berkeley, CA | Indeed.com

Senior Climate Scientist in Berkeley, CA
$129,000

Is your understanding of "at least" different from mine?

 

[IanC]

I dont know how much climate scientists make, either in public universities, public institutions or the private sector. but I do know that bringing in grant money and publishing papers is how they sort out their status and earn the extra perks.

CAGW has been a boon for funding if you support the idea even in a tangential way. and it has lead to a lot of papers that are rubbish. trying to publish papers that are critical of the 'consensus position' has been very difficult and hazardous to your career path, and very often draws harsh criticisms that make it obvious that there is a double standard when it comes to being accepted into the big name publications. if you dont believe that then you havent read the climategate emails with any comprehension.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I dont know how much climate scientists make, either in public universities, public institutions or the private sector. but I do know that bringing in grant money and publishing papers is how they sort out their status and earn the extra perks.

Its odd that you'd have detailed knowledge of how they get their job perks but have no clue about how much they make.

CAGW has been a boon for funding if you support the idea even in a tangential way. and it has lead to a lot of papers that are rubbish.

I'm sure you're planning on presenting evidence.........

trying to publish papers that are critical of the 'consensus position' has been very difficult and hazardous to your career path, and very often draws harsh criticisms that make it obvious that there is a double standard when it comes to being accepted into the big name publications. if you dont believe that then you havent read the climategate emails with any comprehension.

I've never tried to publish such papers, it hasn't been a hazard to me. Are you talking about anyone in particular or have you just invented some hypothetical person - thus abdicating you of the responsibility to base you argument on verifiable reality?

 

[IanC]

hahahaha. would it make the slightest difference to you if I linked to anything? I used to waste my time putting up sources but it doesnt change anyone's mind and I am sure it wont change yours.

what is your opinion on the Soon/Baliunas affair? do you think it was reasonable to force de Freitas out because he published their paper?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

hahahaha. would it make the slightest difference to you if I linked to anything?

Yes.

I used to waste my time putting up sources but it doesnt change anyone's mind and I am sure it wont change yours.

So because evidence is so hard for you to produce - you no longer need it for your arguments to be correct. Got it. I'm sorry that at one time the burden of proving your arguments was actually on you.

what is your opinion on the Soon/Baliunas affair? do you think it was reasonable to force de Freitas out because he published their paper?

Decide what my opinion is for me if you don't mind. You don't need evidence for any of your arguments, so you may as well just make up my thoughts for me while you're at it. I'm sure you haven't actually read the paper in question - and neither have I - so its hard to imagine how either of us has business making an opinion out of it.

 

[IanC]

so you dont have an opinion on that case. how about the ODonnell paper refuting Steig's Nature cover study? know anything about that?

 

[IanC]

do you read any blogs? do you keep up with climate science? Real Climate, or SkepticalScience perhaps? Climate Etc or Bishop Hill or even the dreaded Watts Up With That? where do you get your information from?

 

[IanC]

here is the Soon/Baliunas paper that the Hockey Team went ballistic over. http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr2003/23/c023p089.pdf
'even if we have to redefine what peer review is' fame. not really very controversial to cite 100 previous papers that support the existence of the MWP and LIA. certainly not worthy of getting the editor fired. why was there no furor over Mann using the upside-down Tiljander proxies? no one was fired over that. no removal of an obviously flawed paper either.


or how about the mathematicians Loehle McCulloch paper? they took 18 non-treering series off the shelf and just averaged them, which basically reproduced Lamb's graph from the early IPCC reports before the infamous 'Hockey Stick Graph'. they were properly chastised (from both sides) that they didnt put in the uncertainty bars, and they immediately remedied the problems. and publically linked the data and methodology. unlike soooooooo many consensus climate scientists, Mann for instance.

 

[IanC]

http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/AGW/Loehle/Loehle_McC_E&E_2008.pdf

its not that I can't link to papers, I would just rather talk to people who have already done their own research so they dont think I am trying to "oohpoopahdoo- Decide what my opinion is for me if you don't mind"

 

[code1211]

Please, feel free to produce a model that accurately predicts climate across a 30 year period.

Please, feel free to produce a model that accounts for recent warming trends without including anthropogenic effects.

You claim you've got the goods.

Where?

Oh...

You're right. you never did make that claim.

So you have no proof to support your assertion?

As far as proof to prove a negative, you are kidding i hope. However, if you are seeking proof that there have been warmer climates on this planet in the past absent Anthropogenic forcings, refer to the link below.

From the article linked is the reference to the start of the cycle of Ice Ages which followed and were probably caused by the closure of the Isthmus of Panama.

King Knute or the Big 0 can change the sea level, but i haven't heard of the person that move a continent.

It's not up to a guy who doubts your proof to disprove your case. It's up to you to prove it. So far, you have not. You are asking me to believe that what yuou say is true and are refusing to provide the proof. While you apparently now are saying that you have never said you have any proof, it might be nice to see some.

Would you care to present some proof in the near future?

File:65 Myr Climate Change Rev.png - Global Warming Art

Significant growth of ice sheets did not begin in Greenland and North America until approximately 3 million years ago, following the formation of the Isthmus of Panama by continental drift. This ushered in an era of rapidly cycling glacials and interglacials (see figure at upper right).

 

[IanC]

and just to get back on topic-

sea ice is not back to 'average' but it is certainly well within one standard deviation of the mean (intervals not shown on this graph). ice extent cycles. satellite measurements only really got going in '79 during the cool phase between two warm periods. are we headed towards another cooling phase? who knows?

 

[IanC]

Please, feel free to produce a model that accurately predicts climate across a 30 year period.

Please, feel free to produce a model that accounts for recent warming trends without including anthropogenic effects.

You claim you've got the goods.

Where?

Oh...

You're right. you never did make that claim.

So you have no proof to support your assertion?

As far as proof to prove a negative, you are kidding i hope. However, if you are seeking proof that there have been warmer climates on this planet in the past absent Anthropogenic forcings, refer to the link below.

From the article linked is the reference to the start of the cycle of Ice Ages which followed and were probably caused by the closure of the Isthmus of Panama.

King Knute or the Big 0 can change the sea level, but i haven't heard of the person that move a continent.

It's not up to a guy who doubts your proof to disprove your case. It's up to you to prove it. So far, you have not. You are asking me to believe that what yuou say is true and are refusing to provide the proof. While you apparently now are saying that you have never said you have any proof, it might be nice to see some.

Would you care to present some proof in the near future?

File:65 Myr Climate Change Rev.png - Global Warming Art

Significant growth of ice sheets did not begin in Greenland and North America until approximately 3 million years ago, following the formation of the Isthmus of Panama by continental drift. This ushered in an era of rapidly cycling glacials and interglacials (see figure at upper right).

I read an interesting book 10 or 15 years ago that linked the closing of panama with climate change in Africa that then led to the evolution of humans. interesting, and reasonable, but hardly proof positive.

 

[Old Rocks]

do you read any blogs? do you keep up with climate science? Real Climate, or SkepticalScience perhaps? Climate Etc or Bishop Hill or even the dreaded Watts Up With That? where do you get your information from?

Of course one can also read real peer reviewed science here;



AGW Observer

rather than what someone thinks concerning the articles.

 

[Big Fitz]

hahahaha. would it make the slightest difference to you if I linked to anything?

Yes.

I used to waste my time putting up sources but it doesnt change anyone's mind and I am sure it wont change yours.

So because evidence is so hard for you to produce - you no longer need it for your arguments to be correct. Got it. I'm sorry that at one time the burden of proving your arguments was actually on you.

what is your opinion on the Soon/Baliunas affair? do you think it was reasonable to force de Freitas out because he published their paper?

Decide what my opinion is for me if you don't mind. You don't need evidence for any of your arguments, so you may as well just make up my thoughts for me while you're at it. I'm sure you haven't actually read the paper in question - and neither have I - so its hard to imagine how either of us has business making an opinion out of it.

Evidence is easy to produce.

Fools are hard to convince.

I don't blame Ian for not wanting to bother. I wouldn't either.

Oh BTW. Does your data on university professor earnings include benefits and profits from publishing, speaking and extra curricular activities and research they are in charge of?

I'm just curious.