For those who love modeling... A Comparison CO2 vs No CO2

[Anomalism]

If the science is on your side, why the need to cancel anyone who is a skeptic?

There isn't a need. They're just not being taken seriously because they're not producing work that contradicts what's currently believed. They just manipulate the conclusions of the work other people did, people that believe AGW is happening. You have to get out there and actually do science, measure things, learn things and gain new perspective if you want to be taken seriously as a scientist.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There isn't a need. They're just not being taken seriously because they're not producing work that contradicts what's currently believed. They just manipulate the conclusions of the work other people did, people that believe AGW is happening. You have to get out there and actually do science, measure things, learn things and gain new perspective if you want to be taken seriously as a scientist.

There isn't a need.

Then why is that the first thing the green doomers do

They just manipulate the conclusions of the work other people did,

Like Mike's Nature Trick and fake hockey sticks?

 

[Anomalism]

There isn't a need.

Then why is that the first thing the green doomers do

They just manipulate the conclusions of the work other people did,

Like Mike's Nature Trick and fake hockey sticks?

I don't care what green doomers think. Don't care what Al Gore thinks. I care what qualified scientists think.

I'm not going to convince you of anything. It is what it is.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Also the sources they link to come from scientists that believe AGW is happening. They are taking the work of scientists and deciding for themselves how to translate it. The work they cite is from scientists that disagree with them. They just manipulate the conclusion and feed it to you retarded forum dwellers.

Academic Eunuchs

A scientist is someone who creates things useful to mankind. The retrograde professors whose undeserved prestige gives a performed credibility to the Warmalarmie cult are inferior scientists incapable of creating anything, so they have to jealously destroy the reputation of those true and independent geniuses who benefited us.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don't care what green doomers think. Don't care what Al Gore thinks. I care what qualified scientists think.

I'm not going to convince you of anything. It is what it is.

Qualified scientists who stray from the AGW party line are canceled all the time.

 

[Crick]

An interesting article by Andy May was posted today about modeling the current warming with and without CO2's impact. Its outcome was as predicted, CO2's impact was lost in the noise.

View attachment 859973
The article is a good read, and it is well sourced. I hope my alarmist friends will do the math and look at this for themselves.

Modeling HadCRUT5 with CO2 and without CO2 • Watts Up With That?

By Andy May I hate statistics, as many of you know. Some people think statistics and/or statistical models that meet standard statistical criteria are facts. The IPCC can be like that. They statistically model global surface temperatures with models of volcanic and anthropogenic forcing and...

wattsupwiththat.com

Attribution of recent temperature behaviour reassessed by a neural-network method - Scientific Reports

Attribution studies on recent global warming by Global Climate Model (GCM) ensembles converge in showing the fundamental role of anthropogenic forcings as primary drivers of temperature in the last half century. However, despite their differences, all these models pertain to the same dynamical...

www.nature.com

 

[ReinyDays]

An interesting article by Andy May was posted today about modeling the current warming with and without CO2's impact. Its outcome was as predicted, CO2's impact was lost in the noise.

View attachment 859973
The article is a good read, and it is well sourced. I hope my alarmist friends will do the math and look at this for themselves.

Modeling HadCRUT5 with CO2 and without CO2 • Watts Up With That?

By Andy May I hate statistics, as many of you know. Some people think statistics and/or statistical models that meet standard statistical criteria are facts. The IPCC can be like that. They statistically model global surface temperatures with models of volcanic and anthropogenic forcing and...

wattsupwiththat.com

From the conclusions:

1] A successful model can be built using only solar cycles, ENSO, and the sunspot record.

I don't think so ... a climate model without precipitation? ... that's strictly statistical hogwash ... I skimmed the first 1/3 of your link and I didn't see any reference to joules or watts ... the author doesn't even try to conserve energy ... read my sig line ...

 

[Billy_Bob]

From the conclusions:

1] A successful model can be built using only solar cycles, ENSO, and the sunspot record.

I don't think so ... a climate model without precipitation? ... that's strictly statistical hogwash ... I skimmed the first 1/3 of your link and I didn't see any reference to joules or watts ... the author doesn't even try to conserve energy ... read my sig line ...

May was using the predetermined levels as published by the IPCC. Basically, he was using their own data against them. I agree with your assessment of the science to the degree that has been made up by the IPCC. Mr. May sources that data at the end of the essay.

Our buffered climatic system makes the atmosphere almost totally transparent to energy. This is why his statement is valid. Energy in = energy out, according to ERBE and other satellites which calculate these measurements.

 

[ReinyDays]

May was using the predetermined levels as published by the IPCC. Basically, he was using their own data against them. I agree with your assessment of the science to the degree that has been made up by the IPCC. Mr. May sources that data at the end of the essay.

Our buffered climatic system makes the atmosphere almost totally transparent to energy. This is why his statement is valid. Energy in = energy out, according to ERBE and other satellites which calculate these measurements.

Right ... all he's done is disputed the IPCC ... and he made the UN look bad, no one would have noticed compared to the UN's roll in the Gaza Strip ... IPCC is probably the UN's greatest success ... as measured by deaths directly attributable to the UN's mission ...

If May says "energy in = energy out", then he is wrong ... preliminary numbers give us 1.8 W/m^2 radiative forcing ... the ERBE satellite was dumped in 1997, the replacement CERES instrument shut down and replacements cancelled in 2018 ... too expensive for so little useful data ... the traces are someplace ... crazy up-and-down ... a standard deviation close to the value itself ... but what data we do have points to the +1.8 W/m^2 value, give or take 0.5 ...

I'm fine with that assumption ... and call it an assumption, the beginning of our logical sequence ... we receive more energy from the Sun than we re-radiate back out into space ... therefore, temperatures must rise ... we can demonstrate this with a lil' 2W "grain-of-wheat" light bulb from an N-scale model railroad engine and place it in a cubic meter of air (≈ 1 kilogram) ... Platinum Resistance Thermometers is the secret here ... and be ready to wait a good long time ... BUT ... temperature will go up as predicted ... then just multiply by the number of cubic meters in the atmosphere ... easy peasy ... NOAA uses cheap Walmart thermometers, so their results will differ ...

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

read my sig line ...

What Einstein Was Afraid to Suggest

Then E = mc² must be the formula for a collision. Since c is the maximum velocity of anything from this universe, fission must open up a conduit from another universe or dimension. The first collision must be at that velocity, but all the rest would be slowed down by previous collisions.

 

[Libby von H]

I'm not emotionally invested in this like most of you are. I would love to find out that the scientists were wrong about everything.

And really? Prove it? I know a shill like you is more than aware of the fact that they constantly use sources from scientific institutions to make themselves look legitimate, while at the same time contradicting the conclusions of those sources.

You don't get to bear the standard of credibility of some scientific organization when you're literally contradicting their conclusions and telling them that their work means something other than what they interpreted it to mean. It's arrogant and dishonest. You people really are disgusting.

If you know modeling (I was a programmer) you know the onus is on YOU

“So the real scandal is: Why did anyone ever listen to this guy?” | Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science

[Imperial College epidemiologist Neil] Ferguson was behind the disputed research that sparked the mass culling of eleven million sheep and cattle during the 2001 outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. He also predicted that up to 150,000 people could die. There were fewer than 200 deaths. . . .

In 2002, Ferguson predicted that up to 50,000 people would likely die from exposure to BSE (mad cow disease) in beef. In the U.K., there were only 177 deaths from BSE.

In 2005, Ferguson predicted that up to 150 million people could be killed from bird flu. In the end, only 282 people died worldwide from the disease between 2003 and 2009.

In 2009, a government estimate, based on Ferguson’s advice, said a “reasonable worst-case scenario” was that the swine flu would lead to 65,000 British deaths. In the end, swine flu killed 457 people in the U.K.

Last March, Ferguson admitted that his Imperial College model of the COVID-19 disease was based on undocumented, 13-year-old computer code that was intended to be used for a feared influenza pandemic, rather than a coronavirus. Ferguson declined to release his original code so other scientists could check his results. He only released a heavily revised set of code last week, after a six-week delay.

So the real scandal is: Why did anyone ever listen to this guy?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

If May says "energy in = energy out", then he is wrong ... preliminary numbers give us 1.8 W/m^2 radiative forcing ... the ERBE satellite was dumped in 1997, the replacement CERES instrument shut down and replacements cancelled in 2018 ... too expensive for so little useful data ... the traces are someplace ... crazy up-and-down ... a standard deviation close to the value itself ... but what data we do have point to the +1.8 W/m^2 value, give or take 0.5 ...

The Uninhibited Development of Nature Threatens the Dominance of the 1%

The people at the top don't belong there. All their credentials are meaningless if they have a decadent Zero-Growth attitude. A useful administrator would mandate a satellite detector to analyze the exploration of the Earth all the way down to the core, bombarding the planet with neutrinos and seeing if their rare but certain reflection angle and velocity would indicate where all the oil and minerals are

 

[ding]

What Einstein Was Afraid to Suggest

Then E = mc² must be the formula for a collision. Since c is the maximum velocity of anything from this universe, fission must open up a conduit from another universe or dimension. The first collision must be at that velocity, but all the rest would be slowed down by previous collisions.

That's not what E = mc² means. It's about calculating the energy equivalence of matter. It's how they calculated the matter necessary to produce the cosmic microwave background radiation... among other things.

 

[ReinyDays]

What Einstein Was Afraid to Suggest

Then E = mc² must be the formula for a collision. Since c is the maximum velocity of anything from this universe, fission must open up a conduit from another universe or dimension. The first collision must be at that velocity, but all the rest would be slowed down by previous collisions.

"Another universe" is science fiction ... just like humans traveling 1/100th of c ... or the Big Rip ... not that it can't happen, just that it's outside what can be addressed by science ... E=mc^2 is exactly what ding says it is ... a conversion formula ...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What Einstein Was Afraid to Suggest

Then E = mc² must be the formula for a collision. Since c is the maximum velocity of anything from this universe, fission must open up a conduit from another universe or dimension. The first collision must be at that velocity, but all the rest would be slowed down by previous collisions.

K.E = 1/2 mv² is the formula to use for collisions.

 

[ding]

is exactly what ding says it is

That's what she said when her friend asked her if I was hung like a horse.

 

[ReinyDays]

That's what she said when her friend asked her if I was hung like a horse.

You know that's a guy in women's clothing ... right? ...

 

[Weatherman2020]

Why do Wattsupwiththat and that other blogger website (I forget the name) account for like 99% of all media that contradicts what scientists are telling us about the climate? Does that not seem strange to anybody else?

Are all of the scientists and scientific institutions all over the world corrupt and lying to us, or is it more likely that the bullshitters are the couple of blog websites with spotty at best credibility that pump this shit out?

You people are desperate and blind if that doesn't raise red flags for you.

Because unlike the fake climate scientists, they gain no money for spewing doomsday crap.

 

[ding]

You know that's a guy in women's clothing ... right? ...

But she was the hottest guy I ever saw. ~Shoresy

 

[Manonthestreet]

Also the sources they link to come from scientists that believe AGW is happening. They are taking the work of scientists and deciding for themselves how to translate it. The work they cite is from scientists that disagree with them. They just manipulate the conclusion and feed it to you retarded forum dwellers.

Global warming might not happen quite as fast as we thought – here’s why

Plants will absorb more carbon dioxide than predicted, meaning models could be overestimating the speed which the planet will heat up

www.telegraph.co.uk

Plants will absorb 20 per cent more carbon dioxide than predicted by the end of the century, a new study has found, suggesting climate models are overestimating how fast the planet will warm...