Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You have just made the ultimate mistake my friend. You rely on the alarmists climate models and they can't re-create the weather that occured 5 days ago. The models are completely incapable of accurately recreating what we know occured.
In the scientiic community following the Scientific Principle the computer model is the hypothesis. It has been tested and it has failed every time it has been tried. That means the hypothsis itself is a failure. It does not accurately represent what is observed in the actual wolrd. No climate model is capable of predicting even the simplest sequence of events for a period of one week.
They all fail miserably. Until they can create a model that can do just the simplest re-creation of past weather or climate there is zero chance they can predict the future. An intelligent person can understand that.
Hell, I still want to what happened to that damn Ice Age we were promised back in the early seventies.
The nutters were promisin' it, but where did it go?
What up wit dat chit?
You have just made the ultimate mistake my friend. You rely on the alarmists climate models and they can't re-create the weather that occured 5 days ago. The models are completely incapable of accurately recreating what we know occured.
In the scientiic community following the Scientific Principle the computer model is the hypothesis. It has been tested and it has failed every time it has been tried. That means the hypothsis itself is a failure. It does not accurately represent what is observed in the actual wolrd. No climate model is capable of predicting even the simplest sequence of events for a period of one week.
They all fail miserably. Until they can create a model that can do just the simplest re-creation of past weather or climate there is zero chance they can predict the future. An intelligent person can understand that.
As usual, you're quite deluded and quite wrong. This is another one of the myths of your denier cult that you all accept as gospel but that really has no connection to reality.
How Well Do Coupled Models Simulate Today's Climate?
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
March 2008
Dr. Thomas Reichler, Associate Professor - Department of Atmospheric Sciences
and
Junsu Kim
Department of Meteorology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah
Abstract
Information about climate and how it responds to increased greenhouse gas concentrations depends heavily on insight gained from numerical simulations by coupled climate models. The confidence placed in quantitative estimates of the rate and magnitude of future climate change is therefore strongly related to the quality of these models. In this study, we test the realism of several generations of coupled climate models, including those used for the 1995, 2001, and 2007 reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). By validating against observations of present climate, we show that the coupled models have been steadily improving over time and that the best models are converging toward a level of accuracy that is similar to observation-based analyses of the atmosphere.
Climate Models & Accuracy
(excerpt)
3 - These models are able to simulate past climate. According to the IPCC (2007): "Models have been used to simulate ancient climates, such as the warm mid-Holocene of 6,000 years ago or the last glacial maximum of 21,000 years ago. They can reproduce many features (allowing for uncertainties in reconstructing past climates) such as the magnitude and broad-scale pattern of oceanic cooling during the last ice age. Models can also simulate many observed aspects of climate change over the instrumental record. One example is that the global temperature trend over the past century (shown in Figure 6.2) can be modelled with high skill when both human and natural factors that influence climate are included. Models also reproduce other observed changes, such as the faster increase in nighttime than in daytime temperatures, the larger degree of warming in the Arctic and the small, short-term global cooling (and subsequent recovery) which has followed major volcanic eruptions, such as that of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991. Model global temperature projections made over the last two decades have also been in overall agreement with subsequent observations over that period."
Figure 6.1: Global temperature trend over the past century modeled quite well
As usual, you're quite deluded and quite wrong. This is another one of the myths of your denier cult that you all accept as gospel but that really has no connection to reality.
Gallup poll: John Boehner's favorable numbers slide
House Speaker John Boehner has become less popular with Americans across the political spectrum since taking the gavel in January.
A USA Today/Gallup Poll released Wednesday showed that 56 percent of Republicans view him favorably, down from 65 percent in January.
Among independents, his net favorable ratings are down a whopping 27 percentage points. About 29 percent of independents said they hold a favorable view of the speaker.
And 46 percent of Democrats find him unfavorable, up from 34 percent.
The Speaker is focused on the big challenges facing our country and, thus far, the Democrats who still run Washington seem more focused on partisan attacks that real solutions, Boehners spokesman Michael Steel said in response to the numbers.
In the first four months of his term as speaker of the House, the Ohio Republican has been through several epic battles, including a number of short-term government funding measures, extending the Patriot Act and shepherding through a controversial 2012 spending blueprint.
Overall, the poll said that Boehners favorable/unfavorable ratings are identical: 34 percent of Americans see him favorably, and 34 see him unfavorably. In January the last time Gallup polled 42 percent of people saw him favorably, nearly double the 22 who had the opposite view.
Read more: Gallup poll: John Boehner's favorable numbers slide - Jake Sherman - POLITICO.com
House Speaker John Boehner, a day after saying Congress should consider scaling back tax breaks for big oil companies, appeared to reel in that political olive branch Tuesday as the White House and congressional Democrats seized on his remarks.
The Republican speaker at first seemed to open the door to negotiations with Democrats, saying in an interview Monday that lawmakers "ought to take a look" at President Obama's call to save billions by ending those benefits.
Not surprisingly, the White House and its allies applauded Boehner and urged his colleagues to follow suit. Obama fired off a letter Tuesday to congressional leaders saying he was "heartened" to hear Boehner's comments and called for "immediate action to eliminate unwarranted tax breaks for the oil and gas industry" -- a tax trove he values at $4 billion a year.
But Boehner's office pushed back Tuesday, suggesting the speaker wants to see a more comprehensive approach before signing on to any changes.
"The speaker wants to increase the supply of American energy and reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and he is only interested in reforms that actually lower energy costs and create American jobs," spokesman Brendan Buck said in a statement. "Unfortunately, what the president has suggested so far would simply raise taxes and increase the price at the pump."
The response came as Democrats accompanied the White House letter with a string of backhanded compliments.
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said it was "almost too good to be true" that Boehner realized the "insanity" of giving oil companies tax breaks while gas prices are soaring. He and other Senate Democrats meanwhile slammed rank-and-file Republicans for standing by the "giveaways."
Boehner Plays Down Oil Subsidy Remarks After Dems Seize on Interview - FoxNews.com
Seeing is always believing with humans. At one time, the worlds population believed the earth was flat too. and that the sun rotated around the earth.
I'm glad you didn't get roped into the propaganda of inevitable climate shift though.
Yes, seeing is believing. And I have seen nearly seven decades on this planet. I have seen major changes in what grows at what altitudes in the mountains of Oregon and Washington. I have seen the shrinking of the glaciers in the Cascades, Sierras, Rockies, and ever ealier melts in the Blues.
Many people that I know whose career is in geological fields have witnessed first hand the melting of the Arctic Ice and Permafrost.
Seeing is not believing for all too many here who purposely close their eyes to the changes around them in order to maintain their alternative universe version of reality.
Seeing is always believing with humans. At one time, the worlds population believed the earth was flat too. and that the sun rotated around the earth.
I'm glad you didn't get roped into the propaganda of inevitable climate shift though.
Yes, seeing is believing. And I have seen nearly seven decades on this planet. I have seen major changes in what grows at what altitudes in the mountains of Oregon and Washington. I have seen the shrinking of the glaciers in the Cascades, Sierras, Rockies, and ever ealier melts in the Blues.
Many people that I know whose career is in geological fields have witnessed first hand the melting of the Arctic Ice and Permafrost.
Seeing is not believing for all too many here who purposely close their eyes to the changes around them in order to maintain their alternative universe version of reality.
One of the problems I have with this issue is, had you been here for the past seven million decades, you would have seen considerably more (and much more drastic) change to those same places you mentioned because climate change is also a naturally occurring thing. So, to me, this issue is about how much control over our lives we should be willing to cede to these scientists and politicians (who have a huge stake in the movement).
And I don’t buy into the notion that we are entitled to keep everything exactly the way it is right now simply because we like it (or are used to it) that way. Nope, if the polar bears (or human beings) can’t survive on the earth that evolves tomorrow, they simply have to wind up in the same place as so many other species that could not keep up wound up. That’s nature’s way and, regardless of what we (who are here only at this one instant in time) might want, we can’t stop it.
Is this what you say every time you get your ass kicked? LOL.You have just made the ultimate mistake my friend. You rely on the alarmists climate models and they can't re-create the weather that occured 5 days ago. The models are completely incapable of accurately recreating what we know occured.
In the scientiic community following the Scientific Principle the computer model is the hypothesis. It has been tested and it has failed every time it has been tried. That means the hypothsis itself is a failure. It does not accurately represent what is observed in the actual wolrd. No climate model is capable of predicting even the simplest sequence of events for a period of one week.
They all fail miserably. Until they can create a model that can do just the simplest re-creation of past weather or climate there is zero chance they can predict the future. An intelligent person can understand that.
As usual, you're quite deluded and quite wrong. This is another one of the myths of your denier cult that you all accept as gospel but that really has no connection to reality.
How Well Do Coupled Models Simulate Today's Climate?
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
March 2008
Dr. Thomas Reichler, Associate Professor - Department of Atmospheric Sciences
and
Junsu Kim
Department of Meteorology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah
Abstract
Information about climate and how it responds to increased greenhouse gas concentrations depends heavily on insight gained from numerical simulations by coupled climate models. The confidence placed in quantitative estimates of the rate and magnitude of future climate change is therefore strongly related to the quality of these models. In this study, we test the realism of several generations of coupled climate models, including those used for the 1995, 2001, and 2007 reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). By validating against observations of present climate, we show that the coupled models have been steadily improving over time and that the best models are converging toward a level of accuracy that is similar to observation-based analyses of the atmosphere.
Climate Models & Accuracy
(excerpt)
3 - These models are able to simulate past climate. According to the IPCC (2007): "Models have been used to simulate ancient climates, such as the warm mid-Holocene of 6,000 years ago or the last glacial maximum of 21,000 years ago. They can reproduce many features (allowing for uncertainties in reconstructing past climates) such as the magnitude and broad-scale pattern of oceanic cooling during the last ice age. Models can also simulate many observed aspects of climate change over the instrumental record. One example is that the global temperature trend over the past century (shown in Figure 6.2) can be modelled with high skill when both human and natural factors that influence climate are included. Models also reproduce other observed changes, such as the faster increase in nighttime than in daytime temperatures, the larger degree of warming in the Arctic and the small, short-term global cooling (and subsequent recovery) which has followed major volcanic eruptions, such as that of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991. Model global temperature projections made over the last two decades have also been in overall agreement with subsequent observations over that period."
Figure 6.1: Global temperature trend over the past century modeled quite well
BATTER UP!
Yeah, so??? So what, walleyed? It's a climate scientist discussing the complexities and difficulties of modeling the climate. This is not a secret. The fact remains that the current models have gotten very good at accurately modeling past climates and predicting future developments. As the recent paper that studies modeling results that I just cited says: "...we show that the coupled models have been steadily improving over time and that the best models are converging toward a level of accuracy that is similar to observation-based analyses of the atmosphere."BTW the first one is from a warmist alarmist.....
"Some models suggest very strongly that the American Southwest will dry in a warming world; some models suggest that the Sahel will dry in a warming world. But other models suggest the exact opposite. Now, let's just imagine that the models have an equal pedigree in terms of the scientists who have worked on them and in terms of the papers that have been published it's not quite true but it's a good working assumption. With these two models, you have two estimates one says it's going to get wetter and one says it's going to get drier. What do you do? Is there anything that you can say at all? That is a really difficult question.
...
The problem with climate prediction and projections going out to 2030 and 2050 is that we don't anticipate that they can be tested in the way you can test a weather forecast. It takes about 20 years to evaluate because there is so much unforced variability in the system which we can't predict the chaotic component of the climate system which is not predictable beyond two weeks, even theoretically. That is something that we can't really get a handle on.
...
Freeman Dyson has made a critique of models. I don't know Freeman Dyson; I've met his children. He seems like a very smart person. He has done some very interesting physics. He seems like a guy I would like to know. Yet his statements about climate, climate models, climate modelers, Jim Hansen in particular, are not the statements you would expect a smart person to make. It's like Shakespeare writing a play and then pulling a quote from a penny dreadful sheet that he found in the street. It just seems very inconsistent that somebody who thinks so hard and is so smart about so many things says dumb things like, oh, climate modelers think that their models are real and can't see the real world. I paraphrase but he said something very similar. It betrays a complete ignorance of either climate modelers, climate models or what it is that climate science is all about. His statements about Jim Hansen were very similar."
Edge: THE PHYSICS THAT WE KNOW: A Conversation With Gavin Schmidt
LOLOLOLOL.....let me get this straight....I cite a peer reviewed paper published in a climate related scientific journal - the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, written by a professional climate scientist and professor in the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at a major University, that directly studies models and their accuracy and concludes that they are pretty accurate....and you try to refute that with an (non-peer-reviewed) article in the Financial Post written by two guys who are definitely not climate scientists - Kesten C. Green who has a degree in Management Science and J. Scott Armstrong, a professor of Marketing at the Wharton School with degrees in industrial administration and management - who claim that the models are no good. LOLOLOL. Dr. Armstrong was so sure of himself that in 2007 he offered to bet Al Gore $10,000 that temperatures would not increase in the next ten years. Then, in the real world - 2009 was tied for the second warmest year in the modern record, a new NASA analysis of global surface temperature shows. & According to NOAA scientists, 2010 tied with 2005 as the warmest year of the global surface temperature record, beginning in 1880. From the Wikipedia page on Armstrong: "Climatologist Gavin Schmidt described Armstrong's wager as "essentially a bet on year to year weather noise" rather than on climate change.[17] Armstrong's website, which had been declaring monthly and yearly "winners" of the hypothetical bet, stopped updating the status of the "bet" in March 2010, after Armstrong had lost six of the seven months prior. He has since lost his bet for April, May, June, and July 2010, making Armstrong the loser for 2010 as a whole."
Sorry bozo, I never open pdf files from denier cult blogs. Quote from it if you want but, considering the source, it's almost certainly just more denier cult drivel and pseudo-science anyway.
This has got to be the funniest one of all your "rebuttals". Perhaps in your case we should call them "re-buttheads". 'C3' is a denier cult blog and it is as wacked out wrong as the rest of them. On the page you cited they say: "...the empirical evidence is clear that atmospheric water vapor component is not increasing with an upward trend as predicted by IPCC's climate models and their Climategate scientists. At best, water vapor content has remained constant with the distinct possibility it has trended down over recent years."
Is your brain asleep or are you just really retarded? I just debunked your nonsense in post #83. Most scientists considered AGW the problem, not cooling, even back in the 70's. Try to keep up as best you can, numbnuts.What, no Ice Age?
Damn, I was lookin' forward to some serious snow boardin' action.
Were the nutters just lyin' to us?
Seems to be a pattern with those junk science eatin' idiots.
But then hey, those morons believe anything Algore tells 'em so, we shouldn't really be surprised.
Most scientists?.........Yeah, ok!Is your brain asleep or are you just really retarded? I just debunked your nonsense in post #83. Most scientists considered AGW the problem, not cooling, even back in the 70's. Try to keep up as best you can, numbnuts.What, no Ice Age?
Damn, I was lookin' forward to some serious snow boardin' action.
Were the nutters just lyin' to us?
Seems to be a pattern with those junk science eatin' idiots.
But then hey, those morons believe anything Algore tells 'em so, we shouldn't really be surprised.
Is this what you say every time you get your ass kicked? LOL.As usual, you're quite deluded and quite wrong. This is another one of the myths of your denier cult that you all accept as gospel but that really has no connection to reality.
How Well Do Coupled Models Simulate Today's Climate?
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
March 2008
Dr. Thomas Reichler, Associate Professor - Department of Atmospheric Sciences
and
Junsu Kim
Department of Meteorology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah
Abstract
Information about climate and how it responds to increased greenhouse gas concentrations depends heavily on insight gained from numerical simulations by coupled climate models. The confidence placed in quantitative estimates of the rate and magnitude of future climate change is therefore strongly related to the quality of these models. In this study, we test the realism of several generations of coupled climate models, including those used for the 1995, 2001, and 2007 reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). By validating against observations of present climate, we show that the coupled models have been steadily improving over time and that the best models are converging toward a level of accuracy that is similar to observation-based analyses of the atmosphere.
Climate Models & Accuracy
(excerpt)
3 - These models are able to simulate past climate. According to the IPCC (2007): "Models have been used to simulate ancient climates, such as the warm mid-Holocene of 6,000 years ago or the last glacial maximum of 21,000 years ago. They can reproduce many features (allowing for uncertainties in reconstructing past climates) such as the magnitude and broad-scale pattern of oceanic cooling during the last ice age. Models can also simulate many observed aspects of climate change over the instrumental record. One example is that the global temperature trend over the past century (shown in Figure 6.2) can be modelled with high skill when both human and natural factors that influence climate are included. Models also reproduce other observed changes, such as the faster increase in nighttime than in daytime temperatures, the larger degree of warming in the Arctic and the small, short-term global cooling (and subsequent recovery) which has followed major volcanic eruptions, such as that of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991. Model global temperature projections made over the last two decades have also been in overall agreement with subsequent observations over that period."
Figure 6.1: Global temperature trend over the past century modeled quite well
BATTER UP!
Yeah, so??? So what, walleyed? It's a climate scientist discussing the complexities and difficulties of modeling the climate. This is not a secret. The fact remains that the current models have gotten very good at accurately modeling past climates and predicting future developments. As the recent paper that studies modeling results that I just cited says: "...we show that the coupled models have been steadily improving over time and that the best models are converging toward a level of accuracy that is similar to observation-based analyses of the atmosphere."
Gavin Schmidt also says in this article you're quoting:
"We have been quite successful at building these models on the basis of small-scale processes to produce large-scale simulation of the emerging properties of the climate system. We understand why we have a seasonal cycle; we understand why we have storms in the mid-latitudes; we understand what controls the ebb and flow of the seasonal sea ice distribution in the Arctic. We have good estimates in this regard....It turns out that the average of these twenty models is a better model than any one of the twenty models. It better predicts the seasonal cycle of rainfall; it better predicts surface air temperatures; it better predicts cloudiness."
LOLOLOLOL.....let me get this straight....I cite a peer reviewed paper published in a climate related scientific journal - the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, written by a professional climate scientist and professor in the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at a major University, that directly studies models and their accuracy and concludes that they are pretty accurate....and you try to refute that with an (non-peer-reviewed) article in the Financial Post written by two guys who are definitely not climate scientists - Kesten C. Green who has a degree in Management Science and J. Scott Armstrong, a professor of Marketing at the Wharton School with degrees in industrial administration and management - who claim that the models are no good. LOLOLOL. Dr. Armstrong was so sure of himself that in 2007 he offered to bet Al Gore $10,000 that temperatures would not increase in the next ten years. Then, in the real world - 2009 was tied for the second warmest year in the modern record, a new NASA analysis of global surface temperature shows. & According to NOAA scientists, 2010 tied with 2005 as the warmest year of the global surface temperature record, beginning in 1880. From the Wikipedia page on Armstrong: "Climatologist Gavin Schmidt described Armstrong's wager as "essentially a bet on year to year weather noise" rather than on climate change.[17] Armstrong's website, which had been declaring monthly and yearly "winners" of the hypothetical bet, stopped updating the status of the "bet" in March 2010, after Armstrong had lost six of the seven months prior. He has since lost his bet for April, May, June, and July 2010, making Armstrong the loser for 2010 as a whole."
There was a published rebuttal in the journal Interfaces to Armstrong and Green's articles that said: "Green and Armstrong (2007, p.997) also concluded that the thousands of refereed scientific publications that comprise the basis of the IPCC reports and represent the state of scientific knowledge on past, present and future climates "were not the outcome of scientific procedures." Such cavalier statements appear to reflect an overt attempt by the authors of those reports to cast doubt about the reality of human-caused global warming ... ".
Sorry bozo, I never open pdf files from denier cult blogs. Quote from it if you want but, considering the source, it's almost certainly just more denier cult drivel and pseudo-science anyway.
This has got to be the funniest one of all your "rebuttals". Perhaps in your case we should call them "re-buttheads". 'C3' is a denier cult blog and it is as wacked out wrong as the rest of them. On the page you cited they say: "...the empirical evidence is clear that atmospheric water vapor component is not increasing with an upward trend as predicted by IPCC's climate models and their Climategate scientists. At best, water vapor content has remained constant with the distinct possibility it has trended down over recent years."
The reality: Increase in Atmospheric Moisture Tied to Human Activities, published in 2009 in the Proceedings of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.
(excerpt)
Observations and climate model results confirm that human-induced warming of the planet is having a pronounced effect on the atmospheres total moisture content.
When you heat the planet, you increase the ability of the atmosphere to hold moisture, said Benjamin Santer, lead author from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratorys Program for Climate Modeling and Intercomparison. The atmospheres water vapor content has increased by about 0.41 kilograms per square meter (kg/m²) per decade since 1988, and natural variability in climate just cant explain this moisture change. The most plausible explanation is that its due to the human-caused increase in greenhouse gases.
Using 22 different computer models of the climate system and measurements from the satellite-based Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSM/I), atmospheric scientists from LLNL and eight other international research centers have shown that the recent increase in moisture content over the bulk of the worlds oceans is not due to solar forcing or gradual recovery from the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo. The primary driver of this atmospheric moistening is the increase in carbon dioxide caused by the burning of fossil fuels.
Basic theory, observations and climate model results all show that the increase in water vapor is roughly 6 percent to 7.5 percent per degree Celsius warming of the lower atmosphere.
That's your delusion because you're the fool. Scientists know better. Even scientists who dispute AGW know better.
Dr. Roy Spencer who runs the satellite monitoring program at the University of Alabama Huntsville, is a skeptic of AGW, one of the very few actual climate scientists who's still skeptical, and here's what he has to say about CO2 and the greenhouse effect.
And yet, he can't offer up any proof that he is right. He has attempted experiments to prove backradiation but they have all failed. He states that he believes it even though he can't prove it.
The greenhouse effect is supported by laboratory measurements of the radiative absorption properties of different gases, which when put into a radiative transfer model that conserves energy, and combined with convective overturning of the atmosphere in response to solar heating, results in a vertical temperature profile that looks very much like the one we observe in nature.
***
Translate = models tell us it is true so it must be true. There is no proof there. All that statement says is that your "scientists" have faith in models and we all know that the models are notoriously inaccurate.
By the way, the vertical temperature profile produced by models your "scientist" speaks of is not at all like the vertical temperature profile observed in nature as evidenced by the missing hot spot that all models predict.
How Well Do Coupled Models Simulate Today's Climate?
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
March 2008
Dr. Thomas Reichler, Associate Professor - Department of Atmospheric Sciences
and
Junsu Kim
Department of Meteorology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah
Abstract
Information about climate and how it responds to increased greenhouse gas concentrations depends heavily on insight gained from numerical simulations by coupled climate models. The confidence placed in quantitative estimates of the rate and magnitude of future climate change is therefore strongly related to the quality of these models. In this study, we test the realism of several generations of coupled climate models, including those used for the 1995, 2001, and 2007 reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). By validating against observations of present climate,.....
In this study, we test the realism of several generations of coupled climate models, including those used for the 1995, 2001, and 2007 reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). By validating against observations of present climate, we show that the coupled models have been steadily improving over time and that the best models are converging toward a level of accuracy that is similar to observation-based analyses of the atmosphere.
IPCC usage
The term “radiative forcing” has been used in the IPCC Assessments with a specific technical meaning, to denote an externally imposed perturbation in the radiative energy budget of Earth’s climate system, which may lead to changes in climate parameters.[1] The exact definition used is:
The radiative forcing of the surface-troposphere system due to the perturbation in or the introduction of an agent (say, a change in greenhouse gas concentrations) is the change in net (down minus up) irradiance (solar plus long-wave; in Wm-2) at the tropopause AFTER allowing for stratospheric temperatures to readjust to radiative equilibrium, but with surface and tropospheric temperatures and state held fixed at the unperturbed values.[2]
In a subsequent report,[3] the IPCC defines it as:
"Radiative forcing is a measure of the influence a factor has in altering the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the Earth-atmosphere system and is an index of the importance of the factor as a potential climate change mechanism. In this report radiative forcing values are for changes relative to preindustrial conditions defined at 1750 and are expressed in watts per square meter (W/m2)."
In simple terms, radiative forcing is "...the rate of energy change per unit area of the globe as measured at the top of the atmosphere."[4] In the context of climate change, the term "forcing" is restricted to changes in the radiation balance of the surface-troposphere system imposed by external factors, with no changes in stratospheric dynamics, no surface and tropospheric feedbacks in operation (i.e., no secondary effects induced because of changes in tropospheric motions or its thermodynamic state), and no dynamically induced changes in the amount and distribution of atmospheric water (vapour, liquid, and solid forms).
Radiative forcing can be used to estimate a subsequent change in equilibrium surface temperature (ΔTs) arising from that radiative forcing via the equation:
..... For the case of a change in solar irradiance, the radiative forcing is the change in the solar constant divided by 4 and multiplied by 0.7 to take into account the geometry of the sphere and the amount of reflected sunlight.
strike 3..Next batter up
I'm afraid that you're getting all delusional on me again, walleyed. You've never managed to successfully refute any of the scientific information that I've posted, except maybe in your own very confused and delusion brain (what there is of it).Is this what you say every time you get your ass kicked? LOL.BATTER UP!
Yeah, so??? So what, walleyed? It's a climate scientist discussing the complexities and difficulties of modeling the climate. This is not a secret. The fact remains that the current models have gotten very good at accurately modeling past climates and predicting future developments. As the recent paper that studies modeling results that I just cited says: "...we show that the coupled models have been steadily improving over time and that the best models are converging toward a level of accuracy that is similar to observation-based analyses of the atmosphere."
Gavin Schmidt also says in this article you're quoting:
"We have been quite successful at building these models on the basis of small-scale processes to produce large-scale simulation of the emerging properties of the climate system. We understand why we have a seasonal cycle; we understand why we have storms in the mid-latitudes; we understand what controls the ebb and flow of the seasonal sea ice distribution in the Arctic. We have good estimates in this regard....It turns out that the average of these twenty models is a better model than any one of the twenty models. It better predicts the seasonal cycle of rainfall; it better predicts surface air temperatures; it better predicts cloudiness."
LOLOLOLOL.....let me get this straight....I cite a peer reviewed paper published in a climate related scientific journal - the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, written by a professional climate scientist and professor in the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at a major University, that directly studies models and their accuracy and concludes that they are pretty accurate....and you try to refute that with an (non-peer-reviewed) article in the Financial Post written by two guys who are definitely not climate scientists - Kesten C. Green who has a degree in Management Science and J. Scott Armstrong, a professor of Marketing at the Wharton School with degrees in industrial administration and management - who claim that the models are no good. LOLOLOL. Dr. Armstrong was so sure of himself that in 2007 he offered to bet Al Gore $10,000 that temperatures would not increase in the next ten years. Then, in the real world - 2009 was tied for the second warmest year in the modern record, a new NASA analysis of global surface temperature shows. & According to NOAA scientists, 2010 tied with 2005 as the warmest year of the global surface temperature record, beginning in 1880. From the Wikipedia page on Armstrong: "Climatologist Gavin Schmidt described Armstrong's wager as "essentially a bet on year to year weather noise" rather than on climate change.[17] Armstrong's website, which had been declaring monthly and yearly "winners" of the hypothetical bet, stopped updating the status of the "bet" in March 2010, after Armstrong had lost six of the seven months prior. He has since lost his bet for April, May, June, and July 2010, making Armstrong the loser for 2010 as a whole."
There was a published rebuttal in the journal Interfaces to Armstrong and Green's articles that said: "Green and Armstrong (2007, p.997) also concluded that the thousands of refereed scientific publications that comprise the basis of the IPCC reports and represent the state of scientific knowledge on past, present and future climates "were not the outcome of scientific procedures." Such cavalier statements appear to reflect an overt attempt by the authors of those reports to cast doubt about the reality of human-caused global warming ... ".
Sorry bozo, I never open pdf files from denier cult blogs. Quote from it if you want but, considering the source, it's almost certainly just more denier cult drivel and pseudo-science anyway.
This has got to be the funniest one of all your "rebuttals". Perhaps in your case we should call them "re-buttheads". 'C3' is a denier cult blog and it is as wacked out wrong as the rest of them. On the page you cited they say: "...the empirical evidence is clear that atmospheric water vapor component is not increasing with an upward trend as predicted by IPCC's climate models and their Climategate scientists. At best, water vapor content has remained constant with the distinct possibility it has trended down over recent years."
The reality: Increase in Atmospheric Moisture Tied to Human Activities, published in 2009 in the Proceedings of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.
(excerpt)
Observations and climate model results confirm that human-induced warming of the planet is having a pronounced effect on the atmospheres total moisture content.
When you heat the planet, you increase the ability of the atmosphere to hold moisture, said Benjamin Santer, lead author from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratorys Program for Climate Modeling and Intercomparison. The atmospheres water vapor content has increased by about 0.41 kilograms per square meter (kg/m²) per decade since 1988, and natural variability in climate just cant explain this moisture change. The most plausible explanation is that its due to the human-caused increase in greenhouse gases.
Using 22 different computer models of the climate system and measurements from the satellite-based Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSM/I), atmospheric scientists from LLNL and eight other international research centers have shown that the recent increase in moisture content over the bulk of the worlds oceans is not due to solar forcing or gradual recovery from the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo. The primary driver of this atmospheric moistening is the increase in carbon dioxide caused by the burning of fossil fuels.
Basic theory, observations and climate model results all show that the increase in water vapor is roughly 6 percent to 7.5 percent per degree Celsius warming of the lower atmosphere.
No, I use BATTER UP! when I'm going to partuicularly blast one of you or olfrauds ridiculous assertions out of the park.
Nice try, slick, but no, I've said that computer models can accurately model past climate patterns not past day-to-day weather. So either you were trying to set up a 'strawman argument' like you usually do when you don't have a leg to stand on, or you just don't know enough about modeling to know that 'climate modeling' specifically deals with longer term trends in global and regional climate patterns over longer periods of years, decades, centuries and millennia and these trends can be accurately modeled. On a shorter time scale of weeks or months, the factors tend to be too chaotic for accurate modeling. As it happens, as climate models have developed and improved due to the intense research into all the different physical factors involved, the knowledge gained has bled over into significant improvements in the computer models that meteorologists use for weather forecasting so that forecasts have gotten more accurate and longer range over recent decades.You claim that they have computer models that can recreate the past weather. Please provide a link to that assertion.
