D'oh, Alarmists wrong again!

[mdn2000]

Thats it, I am convinced, two theories that are inconclusive, proved nothing, what does it mean when after years of research and billions of dollars two scientist can only say they tried one theory and it failed, they tried another theory and it failed, so to save face, all they can do is say it might lead to climate change.

Dramatic climate change is unpredictable

We have made a theoretical modelling of two different scenarios that might trigger climate change.

And just for fun I went to a press release from these scientist and as I stated numerous times, the scientist admit when they tweak or substitute real data with proxy data. This is what is left out of the article. Of great interest and importance is these scientist made up the data, they used "proxy data", that is when you assume the data of millions of years ago because the data just does not exist.

http://retreadresources.com/blog/?p=515

Just a reminder this is not definitive by any means it is the results of models run on approximations of proxy data from a very long time ago.

 

[westwall]

Climate alarmist scientists have designed climate models that predict that methane (CH4) gases will increase as the world warms, causing a positive feedback that will then accelerate the warming increase, potentially to a "tipping" point.

New peer-reviewed research, though, sheds light on poorly understood climate processes that will actually negate additional releases of CH4, thus eliminating the beloved "runaway" positive feedback scenario from causing accelerated warming. (The "OMG-were-all-going-to-fry" type of warming that Gore, Hansen and the MSM speculate about.)

Scientists have discovered that soils in forested areas act as a huge sink for methane, absorbing even more as the soil becomes drier from warming - a negative feedback that climate models are presently incapable of predicting.

"Guckland et al. report that "the variation of CH4 uptake over time could be explained to a large extent by changes in soil moisture in the upper five centimeters of the mineral soil," such that "the CH4 uptake during the main growing period (May-September) increased considerably with decreasing precipitation rate," which finding, as they describe it, is "in accordance with the general observation that soil moisture is the primary environmental control on CH4 uptake in soils because it regulates methane flux into the soil through diffusion....."The results suggest that climate change [in this case, global warming] will result in increasing CH4 uptake rates in this region because of the trend to drier summers and warmer winters." And this response represents a negative feedback that should help to temper predicted increases in CO2-induced global warming." [Guckland, A., Flessa, H. and Prenzel, J. 2009.]

Climate models can't predict the weather that occurred three days ago. During the PETN that olfraud loves to harp about there is no evidence that the so called "Methane Catastrophe" occured. In fact ALL evidence shows that life proliferated.

You must be another example of an olfraud clone....you post just like him.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. Walleyes does it again. Climate models cannot predict the weather that occured three days ago. Well, golly, gee whiz, dangeroo, you are correct. Climate models are not created to predict daily weather. They predict weather on a decadel scale.

Once again Walleyes shows the silliness of his position. Since he cannot argue the science, he states really stupid things for the consumption by really stupid people. He is fortunate that we have a surplus of those on this board.

 

[DiveCon]

LOL. Walleyes does it again. Climate models cannot predict the weather that occured three days ago. Well, golly, gee whiz, dangeroo, you are correct. Climate models are not created to predict daily weather. They predict weather on a decadel scale.

Once again Walleyes shows the silliness of his position. Since he cannot argue the science, he states really stupid things for the consumption by really stupid people. He is fortunate that we have a surplus of those on this board.

you are one of the stupid people

 

[westwall]

LOL. Walleyes does it again. Climate models cannot predict the weather that occured three days ago. Well, golly, gee whiz, dangeroo, you are correct. Climate models are not created to predict daily weather. They predict weather on a decadel scale.

Once again Walleyes shows the silliness of his position. Since he cannot argue the science, he states really stupid things for the consumption by really stupid people. He is fortunate that we have a surplus of those on this board.

Well gee dingus mcgee, don't you think that before a computer model will have any credibility it should be able to recreate what we know occured? It's kind of like flight testing a new aircraft. The FAA would never allow a manufacturer to sell aircraft to the public until they have been thoroughly tested.

Computer models can't recreate what we know occured TEN YEARS AGO. Hows that for you. You claim that they can only predict what will occur decades from now. Fine, that means they should be able to recreate what occured 10, 15, 20, 30 years ago.

OOOOOPPPPS. That can't do that either! Shock of shocks...they can't recreate what occured at any time in the past. If left to run on their own without constant monitering (every hour for most programs) they predict the Earth will have the temperature of the Sun within 20 years. OOOOOOPPPS.

I don't know about you but I don't hink I would like to fly in an aircraft with a track record like that....would you?


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mD8D1GrrWU8&feature=related[/ame]

 

[Chris]

LOL. Walleyes does it again. Climate models cannot predict the weather that occured three days ago. Well, golly, gee whiz, dangeroo, you are correct. Climate models are not created to predict daily weather. They predict weather on a decadel scale.

Once again Walleyes shows the silliness of his position. Since he cannot argue the science, he states really stupid things for the consumption by really stupid people. He is fortunate that we have a surplus of those on this board.

Well gee dingus mcgee, don't you think that before a computer model will have any credibility it should be able to recreate what we know occured? It's kind of like flight testing a new aircraft. The FAA would never allow a manufacturer to sell aircraft to the public until they have been thoroughly tested.

Computer models can't recreate what we know occured TEN YEARS AGO. Hows that for you. You claim that they can only predict what will occur decades from now. Fine, that means they should be able to recreate what occured 10, 15, 20, 30 years ago.

OOOOOPPPPS. That can't do that either! Shock of shocks...they can't recreate what occured at any time in the past. If left to run on their own without constant monitering (every hour for most programs) they predict the Earth will have the temperature of the Sun within 20 years. OOOOOOPPPS.

I don't know about you but I don't hink I would like to fly in an aircraft with a track record like that....would you?


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mD8D1GrrWU8&feature=related[/ame]

Sorry, Westwall you've been outed.

You work for the oil industry. For those who are interested check out Westwall's personal profile and statistics on this board. Every thread he has started has been about the oil industry or an attack on global warming.

 

[westwall]

LOL. Walleyes does it again. Climate models cannot predict the weather that occured three days ago. Well, golly, gee whiz, dangeroo, you are correct. Climate models are not created to predict daily weather. They predict weather on a decadel scale.

Once again Walleyes shows the silliness of his position. Since he cannot argue the science, he states really stupid things for the consumption by really stupid people. He is fortunate that we have a surplus of those on this board.

Well gee dingus mcgee, don't you think that before a computer model will have any credibility it should be able to recreate what we know occured? It's kind of like flight testing a new aircraft. The FAA would never allow a manufacturer to sell aircraft to the public until they have been thoroughly tested.

Computer models can't recreate what we know occured TEN YEARS AGO. Hows that for you. You claim that they can only predict what will occur decades from now. Fine, that means they should be able to recreate what occured 10, 15, 20, 30 years ago.

OOOOOPPPPS. That can't do that either! Shock of shocks...they can't recreate what occured at any time in the past. If left to run on their own without constant monitering (every hour for most programs) they predict the Earth will have the temperature of the Sun within 20 years. OOOOOOPPPS.

I don't know about you but I don't hink I would like to fly in an aircraft with a track record like that....would you?


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mD8D1GrrWU8&feature=related[/ame]

Sorry, Westwall you've been outed.

You work for the oil industry. For those who are interested check out Westwall's personal profile and statistics on this board. Every thread he has started has been about the oil industry or an attack on global warming.

Wrong again Chrissy. I fully admitted in a thread quite a while back that I had worked for BP for two years over 25 years ago in their mineral acquisition division, seperate from the petroleum division. I was based in Australia and looked for alluvial diamonds in the Great Sandy Desert. Found 'em too!

Since then I've been an independant. Unlike you who works for the citizenry raping Goldman Sachs.

 

[mdn2000]

LOL. Walleyes does it again. Climate models cannot predict the weather that occured three days ago. Well, golly, gee whiz, dangeroo, you are correct. Climate models are not created to predict daily weather. They predict weather on a decadel scale.

Once again Walleyes shows the silliness of his position. Since he cannot argue the science, he states really stupid things for the consumption by really stupid people. He is fortunate that we have a surplus of those on this board.

Well gee dingus mcgee, don't you think that before a computer model will have any credibility it should be able to recreate what we know occured? It's kind of like flight testing a new aircraft. The FAA would never allow a manufacturer to sell aircraft to the public until they have been thoroughly tested.

Computer models can't recreate what we know occured TEN YEARS AGO. Hows that for you. You claim that they can only predict what will occur decades from now. Fine, that means they should be able to recreate what occured 10, 15, 20, 30 years ago.

OOOOOPPPPS. That can't do that either! Shock of shocks...they can't recreate what occured at any time in the past. If left to run on their own without constant monitering (every hour for most programs) they predict the Earth will have the temperature of the Sun within 20 years. OOOOOOPPPS.

I don't know about you but I don't hink I would like to fly in an aircraft with a track record like that....would you?


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mD8D1GrrWU8&feature=related[/ame]

Computer models, I know you have stated this in the past, its worth repeating, scientist change the equations, the parameters of tests, they change the data, they make data called proxy data to feed into the computer models, all while admitting that they have proved nothing because of the manipulations they had to perform to get the result that is inconclusive.

 

[Chris]

Adding 1,000 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere will warm the earth.

That is a fact.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And warming the Earth is bad because...