How have the IPCC's computer models performed?

[SSDD]

Do you REALLY want to pull Spencer and Christy's JOKE out here and pretend its real?

Why don't you do some searching and find some of the real discussion about this Spencer claptrap. You've embarrassed yourself here often enough. You really don't need the added exposure.

You mean some real cherry picking and denial of the facts from a warmist wacko? No thanks..I will stick to the facts which is what the graph shows. I know it must be like sunlight to a vampire for you, but try and look...set yourself free...stop being a stooge.

Looks like the SS has been at work with their crayons again.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You mean some real cherry picking and denial of the facts from a warmist wacko? No thanks..I will stick to the facts which is what the graph shows. I know it must be like sunlight to a vampire for you, but try and look...set yourself free...stop being a stooge.

Looks like the SS has been at work with their crayons again.

SSDD - any chance you'll go over to the science board and
1) explain how you know general relativity is 'bullshit'
2) explain how scientists all over the world got the entropy profile for atmospheres wrong
3) explain how photons remember their emitters temperature
4) explain how photons know the temperature of potential absorbers instantaneously

Thanks

 

[SSDD]

I don't know, why don't we actually look...

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n4/full/nclimate1763.html

That doesn't seem to fall in with your "CO2 does not drive climate" chant.

There's something seriously fucking wrong with you. You keep posting to Warmer slapping each other on the back congratulating each other on their "Consensus"

That's not science

This is a chart showing CO2 LAGGING temperature over a 500,000 year period

Your standard moronic reply is: But, but, but , but that's not global you Denier!!

First you have NOTHING in response showing how CO2 was driving climate over the same period and second over 500,000 it's safe to say CO2 did not drive temperature

If your friends won't do an intervention, have yourself committed

Lagging Co2 in the past is completely consistent with its role as a positive feedback mechanism.

It is not a positive feedback mechanism. It is a tool being used to propagate a hoax.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

There's something seriously fucking wrong with you. You keep posting to Warmer slapping each other on the back congratulating each other on their "Consensus"

That's not science

This is a chart showing CO2 LAGGING temperature over a 500,000 year period

Your standard moronic reply is: But, but, but , but that's not global you Denier!!

First you have NOTHING in response showing how CO2 was driving climate over the same period and second over 500,000 it's safe to say CO2 did not drive temperature

If your friends won't do an intervention, have yourself committed

Lagging Co2 in the past is completely consistent with its role as a positive feedback mechanism.

It is not a positive feedback mechanism. It is a tool being used to propagate a hoax.

Then I defer to your genius.

Folks - I dunno if you realize this - but SSDD is basically Newton + Einstein + Sagan combined. He has figured out some things that are going to revolutionize science (see above listing). Even General Relativity is brought to its knees by SSDD intuitive way of perceiving reality.

 

[Andylusion]

Lagging Co2 in the past is completely consistent with its role as a positive feedback mechanism.

It is not a positive feedback mechanism. It is a tool being used to propagate a hoax.

Then I defer to your genius.

Folks - I dunno if you realize this - but SSDD is basically Newton + Einstein + Sagan combined. He has figured out some things that are going to revolutionize science (see above listing). Even General Relativity is brought to its knees by SSDD intuitive way of perceiving reality.

Common sense is so rare now, that when someone says something with common sense logic, they are considered "Newton + Einstein + Sagan combined".

If CO2... has any ability to drive temperature change... it would lead..... the temperature change.

When you run a hand generator and light...

You would never suggest that the light obviously is driving the generator. Duh... because it lags coming on until after you start turning the generator.

That proves you are "Newton + Einstein + Sagan combined"! What kind stupidity is that?!?

CO2 can't possibly be driving temperature change, when it's lagging behind the temperature change!

My car moving forward must cause the engine to start. Dur dur. Yes the car moving lags behind the engine starting, but doesn't mean it can't be the cause of the engine starting.... we're in leftard land where common sense has been outlawed, and we're all too dumb to think for ourselves.

 

[mamooth]

Common sense is so rare now,

After reading your post, everyone will have to agree. You possess no common sense.

If CO2... has any ability to drive temperature change... it would lead..... the temperature change.

And it does. We put CO2 into the atmosphere, then the temperatures went up. That would be CO2 very obviously leading temperature.

And if you need me to explain that in smaller words, I can't. I've already dumbed it down as much as possible.

 

[skookerasbil]

Common sense is so rare now,

After reading your post, everyone will have to agree. You possess no common sense.

If CO2... has any ability to drive temperature change... it would lead..... the temperature change.

And it does. We put CO2 into the atmosphere, then the temperatures went up. That would be CO2 very obviously leading temperature.

And if you need me to explain that in smaller words, I can't. I've already dumbed it down as much as possible.

Opinion shit on an internet forum is the height of ghey s0n........it impresses only the 3 or 4 other AGW nutters in this forum.......but nobody else. So.....people see all this conjecture and personal attack shit and then see that faggy cat with all the limpwrister hyseteria typically seen in all far right assholes. In other words, the AGW religious nuts can be seen on any internet forum from 1,000 miles away. Oh.....the misery level too!! How can I forget.......

 

[IanC]

it is all well and good to examine how temperature and CO2 acted in the past but it is not especially relevant to the present situation where we have artificially skewed the ratio by burning fossil fuels.

some scientists are making an educated guess that CO2 will have an impact of ~1C/2xCO2 by extrapolating from measured radiative characteristics, other scientists say that ~1C will be multiplied by conjectured positive feedbacks which do not seem to be acting in accordance to the theory when real world data is analyzed.

 

[Crick]

Do you actually think that on the order of say, a century, those "conjectured positive feedbacks" will have no effect or even that their conjecture was in error: that they don't exist? That's a rather dangerous supposition with extremely little evidientiary support. The effective transient CS over the last century is ~3C, the equiibrium CS will, of course, be greater. Yet based on what I assume is the climate's surface temperature behavior for the last decade - ignoring deep ocean temperatures, the rate of increase in global heat content or the radiative imbalance measured directly at the ToA - you think we should assume it is ~1C.

I think that is an enormous mistake. We've been treating it as if it's zero. How well has that served us?

 

[IanC]

Do you actually think that on the order of say, a century, those "conjectured positive feedbacks" will have no effect or even that their conjecture was in error: that they don't exist? That's a rather dangerous supposition with extremely little evidientiary support. The effective transient CS over the last century is ~3C, the equiibrium CS will, of course, be greater. Yet based on what I assume is the climate's surface temperature behavior for the last decade - ignoring deep ocean temperatures, the rate of increase in global heat content or the radiative imbalance measured directly at the ToA - you think we should assume it is ~1C.

I think that is an enormous mistake. We've been treating it as if it's zero. How well has that served us?

you seem to be confused by the terms transient and equilibrium. even the IPCC has the transient response as <2C, and the equilibrium response as 1.5-4.5C with no central estimate but figures on the low side of the range as more likely.

 

[Crick]

Alright. I'm too stupid this morning. But I'm not alone.

 

[IanC]

Alright. I'm too stupid this morning. But I'm not alone.

does this mean you are going to stop making this same mistake? I have pointed it out to you in the past, repeatedly. but you seem to go right back to it. I dont like calling people liars but when they repeat the same falsehood after being shown that it is not true.......

 

[jc456]

Common sense is so rare now,

After reading your post, everyone will have to agree. You possess no common sense.

If CO2... has any ability to drive temperature change... it would lead..... the temperature change.

And it does. We put CO2 into the atmosphere, then the temperatures went up. That would be CO2 very obviously leading temperature.

And if you need me to explain that in smaller words, I can't. I've already dumbed it down as much as possible.

There you go again. Dude, stop your lies. You have no clue do you? haahahahahahaahahahahahaha...hey where's that experiment bubba? You know the one that proves your lie? Ah, forgot, you ain't got one. liar!

 

[Crick]

Alright. I'm too stupid this morning. But I'm not alone.

does this mean you are going to stop making this same mistake? I have pointed it out to you in the past, repeatedly. but you seem to go right back to it. I dont like calling people liars but when they repeat the same falsehood after being shown that it is not true.......

I don't actually recall you pointing it out to me in the past, but I can believe you probably have. I will try. And I will hope that you will stop attempting to imply that clearly demonstrated feedback mechanisms are unsupported wishful thinking and should be ignored or that one can safely assume that all data adjustments are fraudulent and the thousands of scientists who make and use them without complaint are lying conspirators.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Common sense is so rare now,

After reading your post, everyone will have to agree. You possess no common sense.

If CO2... has any ability to drive temperature change... it would lead..... the temperature change.

And it does. We put CO2 into the atmosphere, then the temperatures went up. That would be CO2 very obviously leading temperature.

And if you need me to explain that in smaller words, I can't. I've already dumbed it down as much as possible.

How is it that CO2 LAGS temperature over this 400,000 year data set?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Common sense is so rare now,

After reading your post, everyone will have to agree. You possess no common sense.

If CO2... has any ability to drive temperature change... it would lead..... the temperature change.

And it does. We put CO2 into the atmosphere, then the temperatures went up. That would be CO2 very obviously leading temperature.

And if you need me to explain that in smaller words, I can't. I've already dumbed it down as much as possible.

Opinion shit on an internet forum is the height of ghey s0n........it impresses only the 3 or 4 other AGW nutters in this forum.......but nobody else. So.....people see all this conjecture and personal attack shit and then see that faggy cat with all the limpwrister hyseteria typically seen in all far right assholes. In other words, the AGW religious nuts can be seen on any internet forum from 1,000 miles away. Oh.....the misery level too!! How can I forget.......

 

[Crick]

Common sense is so rare now,

After reading your post, everyone will have to agree. You possess no common sense.

If CO2... has any ability to drive temperature change... it would lead..... the temperature change.

And it does. We put CO2 into the atmosphere, then the temperatures went up. That would be CO2 very obviously leading temperature.

And if you need me to explain that in smaller words, I can't. I've already dumbed it down as much as possible.

How is it that CO2 LAGS temperature over this 400,000 year data set?

Perhaps, just perhaps, it had something to do with the lack of CO2-producing industrial human culture.

YA THINK?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

After reading your post, everyone will have to agree. You possess no common sense.



And it does. We put CO2 into the atmosphere, then the temperatures went up. That would be CO2 very obviously leading temperature.

And if you need me to explain that in smaller words, I can't. I've already dumbed it down as much as possible.

How is it that CO2 LAGS temperature over this 400,000 year data set?

Perhaps, just perhaps, it had something to do with the lack of CO2-producing industrial human culture.

YA THINK?

Huh? Are you saying that modern CO2 is different?

 

[Crick]

No one could be as stupid as you pretend to be. This point could be understood by your average first grader and it has been explained - specifically to you - dozens of times now.

 

[itfitzme]

How is it that CO2 LAGS temperature over this 400,000 year data set?

Perhaps, just perhaps, it had something to do with the lack of CO2-producing industrial human culture.

YA THINK?

Huh? Are you saying that modern CO2 is different?

Thing that is so incredulous is the complete lack of understanding of what a feedback system is. There is only one explaination, ignorance, intentional or othewise.

Do you really expect anyone with a modicum of knowledge and intelligence to take care that comment seriously?