Australian Perforates Global Warming Hoax

[IanC]

Proof is in the pudding, and, if by 2020, we have not seen cooling, then Dr. Evans will go down as just another poser. And I will remind you deniers about your blind support of the man. Just like you said that you would accept what the BEST study came up with, and then turned around and accused the scientists that did that study of fraud.

I can agree with parts of what someone says without giving a blanket approval to everything they say.

for example, Hansen is the first person that I read that stated the pressure towards warming caused by CO2 is a fixed amount dependent on the extra CO2 and the physics involved. the whole 'more than 50% manmade' meme is nonsense. even if we do cool, there is still the same amount of pressure by CO2 on the system.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Proof is in the pudding, and, if by 2020, we have not seen cooling, then Dr. Evans will go down as just another poser. And I will remind you deniers about your blind support of the man. Just like you said that you would accept what the BEST study came up with, and then turned around and accused the scientists that did that study of fraud.

So you're saying he's going to join the long list liberal idiots who have been wrong on glowbull warming and the coming ice age?
Sounds contradictory .....

 

[Billy_Bob]

Proof is in the pudding, and, if by 2020, we have not seen cooling, then Dr. Evans will go down as just another poser. And I will remind you deniers about your blind support of the man. Just like you said that you would accept what the BEST study came up with, and then turned around and accused the scientists that did that study of fraud.

You mean like the ones who predicted no snow and a massive temp rise by 2015?

The stupid contained in your post... It burns...

 

[mamooth]

what about the posers who predicted 0.2C/decade of warming?

The figments of your imagination are only of interest to you.

But then, given such figments are all deniers have left, I understand why they cling to them so fiercely.

Oh, Evans has already completely pooched one prediction, about the lack of a hotspot. As is usual with deniers, such a complete failure is considered to be a resume-builder, as it proves Evans is willing to humiliate himself on behalf of the cult.

 

[Billy_Bob]

what about the posers who predicted 0.2C/decade of warming?

The figments of your imagination are only of interest to you.

But then, given such figments are all deniers have left, I understand why they cling to them so fiercely.

Oh, Evans has already completely pooched one prediction, about the lack of a hotspot. As is usual with deniers, such a complete failure is considered to be a resume-builder, as it proves Evans is willing to humiliate himself on behalf of the cult.

Show us in EMPIRICAL OBSERVED EVIDENCE where your imaginary hot spot exists...

This is going to be fun.... watching this moron run in circles..

 

[mamooth]

Not a problem. Tim Lambert has a fine time dismembering Evans here.

The Australian‘s War on Science XV – Deltoid

 

[Billy_Bob]

Not a problem. Tim Lambert has a fine time dismembering Evans here.

The Australian‘s War on Science XV – Deltoid

I said YOU... you moron... Lambert is paid for shill of the left and always has been.. His math doesn't stand the test of empirical review just like the IPCC and 99% of all modelers. the predictive phase fails every time.. Evans reworked models are correct within +/-0.25 deg C..

Epic Fail... Try Again hairball..


EPIC FAIL====>> NO HOT SPOT ON EARTH!!

 

[skookerasbil]

As most folks know, there hasn't been any warming for almost two decades.

No, most folks know that's a flat out lie, and assume anyone who attempted such a lie must be lying about everything else as well.

There have already been two threads here about the denier devotee Evans. You're late to the party.

fAil s0n....the pause is scientific fact.

Losing...........again.

Hey Political Chic.........great thread. Somehow missed it through all the bogusness posted up by the religion.

 

[flacaltenn]

Not a problem. Tim Lambert has a fine time dismembering Evans here.

The Australian‘s War on Science XV – Deltoid

NOTHING in that article refutes or addresses any of his observations about specific modeling problems. And there are "quotes" alledgedly from him that are not sourced.

Does not address the issue of what might be found in his critique of the modeling and current climate science understandings.

BTW -- the link to The Australian -- where Evans alledgedly says these things is a 403 error.
Betcha blogging guy knows that 97% of people reading his blog are not gonna verify the quotes.
Lordy you have a very low threshold for bullshit..

 

[mamooth]

NOTHING in that article refutes or addresses any of his observations about specific modeling problems.

Yeah, but it poked fun at Billy's hero, and that's the important part.

I would like to see you explain why the hot spot shouldn't be there. It's a curious position to take, given the denier fixation on convection. A warmer world has to have more convection, which would bring more heat to the upper troposphere. So if you say convection is the primary driving force of heat transfer, you're pretty much saying the tropospheric hot spot has to be there.

As far as the tropospheric hotspot itself goes, we could just say I put up the links, deniers said it's all a fraud, and leave it at that. You know, the usual. That will save some time.

There are all kinds of papers trying to remove the errors from the radiosonde (weather balloon) data. Since it's error removal, those are the ones deniers auto-declare are faked.

Here's a paper deriving it from wind speeds.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~joel/g280_s09/recent_atmosphere/allen_sherwood_ngeo08.pdf

And this one derives it from sea surface temps and precip.

Changes in the sea surface temperature threshold for tropical convection : Nature Geoscience : Nature Publishing Group

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n12/full/ngeo1025.html

 

[flacaltenn]

NOTHING in that article refutes or addresses any of his observations about specific modeling problems.

Yeah, but it poked fun at Billy's hero, and that's the important part.

I would like to see you explain why the hot spot shouldn't be there. It's a curious position to take, given the denier fixation on convection. A warmer world has to have more convection, which would bring more heat to the upper troposphere. So if you say convection is the primary driving force of heat transfer, you're pretty much saying the tropospheric hot spot has to be there.

As far as the tropospheric hotspot itself goes, we could just say I put up the links, deniers said it's all a fraud, and leave it at that. You know, the usual. That will save some time.

There are all kinds of papers trying to remove the errors from the radiosonde (weather balloon) data. Since it's error removal, those are the ones deniers auto-declare are faked.

Here's a paper deriving it from wind speeds.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~joel/g280_s09/recent_atmosphere/allen_sherwood_ngeo08.pdf

And this one derives it from sea surface temps and precip.

Changes in the sea surface temperature threshold for tropical convection : Nature Geoscience : Nature Publishing Group

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n12/full/ngeo1025.html

Whether a "hot spot" exists or not is not as important to me as properly understanding the underlying thermo distribution systems of the climate. It's a theoretical construct based on a LOT of simplifications.

And it's a big diversion from the topic of inspecting the climate models for bugs.

 

[Old Rocks]

Since our climate models are relatively new, examining them for bugs will be an ongoing project for a couple of decades. The Europeans are leading us right now, as their climate models are now ran on a much more powerful computer than anything we have dedicated to this project. There forecasts on Sandy and the latest Atlantic hurricane were far more accurate than ours.

Given the amount of property we have seen destroyed in the last ten years by extreme weather, a better forecasting system would be a very good investment.

 

[westwall]

Since our climate models are relatively new, examining them for bugs will be an ongoing project for a couple of decades. The Europeans are leading us right now, as their climate models are now ran on a much more powerful computer than anything we have dedicated to this project. There forecasts on Sandy and the latest Atlantic hurricane were far more accurate than ours.

Given the amount of property we have seen destroyed in the last ten years by extreme weather, a better forecasting system would be a very good investment.

Why? They are so simple they should simply be shit canned and some professionals brought in to produce something usable.

 

[IanC]

Not a problem. Tim Lambert has a fine time dismembering Evans here.

The Australian‘s War on Science XV – Deltoid

NOTHING in that article refutes or addresses any of his observations about specific modeling problems. And there are "quotes" alledgedly from him that are not sourced.

Does not address the issue of what might be found in his critique of the modeling and current climate science understandings.

BTW -- the link to The Australian -- where Evans alledgedly says these things is a 403 error.
Betcha blogging guy knows that 97% of people reading his blog are not gonna verify the quotes.
Lordy you have a very low threshold for bullshit..

You should try the link again. He basically says the signature for CO2 is stratospheric cooling, not the missing hotspot. It's an old post, so it's funny to see the old temp graph compared to today's version.

 

[flacaltenn]

Not a problem. Tim Lambert has a fine time dismembering Evans here.

The Australian‘s War on Science XV – Deltoid

NOTHING in that article refutes or addresses any of his observations about specific modeling problems. And there are "quotes" alledgedly from him that are not sourced.

Does not address the issue of what might be found in his critique of the modeling and current climate science understandings.

BTW -- the link to The Australian -- where Evans alledgedly says these things is a 403 error.
Betcha blogging guy knows that 97% of people reading his blog are not gonna verify the quotes.
Lordy you have a very low threshold for bullshit..

You should try the link again. He basically says the signature for CO2 is stratospheric cooling, not the missing hotspot. It's an old post, so it's funny to see the old temp graph compared to today's version.

I saw the Blog article thru the link.. But that piece gets it's Evan's quotes from The Australian.. And it's THAT link that doesn't work. Might be behind a paywall..

 

[IanC]

Not a problem. Tim Lambert has a fine time dismembering Evans here.

The Australian‘s War on Science XV – Deltoid

NOTHING in that article refutes or addresses any of his observations about specific modeling problems. And there are "quotes" alledgedly from him that are not sourced.

Does not address the issue of what might be found in his critique of the modeling and current climate science understandings.

BTW -- the link to The Australian -- where Evans alledgedly says these things is a 403 error.
Betcha blogging guy knows that 97% of people reading his blog are not gonna verify the quotes.
Lordy you have a very low threshold for bullshit..

You should try the link again. He basically says the signature for CO2 is stratospheric cooling, not the missing hotspot. It's an old post, so it's funny to see the old temp graph compared to today's version.

I saw the Blog article thru the link.. But that piece gets it's Evan's quotes from The Australian.. And it's THAT link that doesn't work. Might be behind a paywall..

It's true that quotes are usually taken out of context, or specifically when it was meant to be a generalization, or generally when it was intended for a specific case. Often the intent is derailed by focusing on a tangential issue.

By both sides I might add. The example of Evans' and climate model partial derivatives is perfect. Evans' point is purposely misconstrued and bogged down by irrelevant details.

 

[jc456]

Well now, Dr. Evans states that we will see a cooling starting in 2017. So, only two years to see if Evans has a leg to stand on.

wow glad to see your arithmetic is in order. How long did it take you to realize that 2017 was over a year away?

 

[jc456]

Proof is in the pudding, and, if by 2020, we have not seen cooling, then Dr. Evans will go down as just another poser. And I will remind you deniers about your blind support of the man. Just like you said that you would accept what the BEST study came up with, and then turned around and accused the scientists that did that study of fraud.

wow, dude you're on fire!!!! Funny stuff, good thing that isn't too obvious eh?

I'm sure Dr. Evans would be proud of you.

 

[IanC]

Who has blind support of Evans? He has brought up some very interesting criticisms of climate modeling that should be investigated. Are his ideas less wrong than the consensus stand? Yet to be determined.